SkyHigh

Possibly the best politician Canada has ever had. First he fooled the separatists into thinking he agreed with them, all to have the ability to bring about the social change he wanted But just for campaign financing he should be lauded

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 Like this resume from one of the most respected medical journals in the world? I await one giving contrary evidence P.S Facebook posts don't count

Again my point was you need to already accept the Bible to find truth in it, I can't say it any clearer. I probably have a better understanding of your holy book than you do and by not even recognizing that you have not addressed my original post in the slightest, it is you that has proved your not serious and are not willing to even consider anything outside your own presuppositions As far as your video he says the same thing virtually every presuppositional apologist says and the reason I didn't watch the entire 40 minute video is because I've heard it all before many, many ,many times before. Have you never heard of confirmation bias? Obviously not or you wouldn't refer me to such things. As far as creation.com, the way the scientific community works is someone has a theory publishes a paper for PEER Review, but apparently you either don't understand this or know that no such research exists. Concerned about my eternal destiny? Made up my mind to be in darkness?What ridiculous statements and when you ( or anyone for that matter) proclaim you have the truth that's a tell tale sign you don't have it I have no bias against God, but if you think asking for evidence of what you believe about very important issues is not acceptable, maybe you should take a look at why you believe what you do If you want to take your ball and go home because I asked a couple "simple " questions seems to me tantamount to admittance you not only can't answer them but have never even looked into why you believe what you do, but by all means run away

No Sir, you gave me a link to a pastor(someone who already believes in the Bible) saying why the book he presupposes the truth of is better than holy books he doesn't subscribe to, if you want to actually address my point find me a practicing Hindu that makes an argument why the Christian Bible is superior to the Bhagavad Gita. Then you pointed me to a propaganda website (creation.com) where non scientists make unsubstantiated claims to rationalize their ad-hoc explanations, please provide any peer reviewed scientific papers that support any of these assertions. As for your so called "prophecies "I could most likely prove that none are actually prophetic (though I don't know for sure your specific situation, I know more about the Bible than many, many, many, self proclaimed Christians) but for the purpose of this conversation I'll keep it general. 1: when athors have access to the original documents (in this case the old Testament) it isn't very difficult to tailor a new document ( in this case the new Testament, written at best 30 years after Jesus's supposed death) to fulfill these " prophecies ". In Harry Potter there was prophecie about a boy born on a specific date that would vanquish evil, by your logic that would make Harry Potter a messiah and the novels sacred text 2: There exists a whole group of people that believed (and still do) in the old Testament, yet completely disagree with your claims of prophecie they're called Jews.

I in no way have the expertise to explain the building blocks of life to someone who obviously knows even less about the subject than I do, but I'm pretty comfortable in my opinion as it Is in the consensus of EVERY credible scientist. Let me be clear, even though I vehemently disagree with you opinion I would fight for your right to express it. Sadly in every response to me you have ignored my central premise, which is to believe the Bible ( or any other holy book) you MUST presuppose its truth, everything you said is at best ad-hoc.

OK if you're going to just make things up, I will no longer be responding

I gave it a look but honestly couldn't sit through 40 minutes of presuppositional apologetics, particularly since I could find examples of the exact same thing from Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc... My point was, and still remains that virtually any world view can be justified if you already believe it and any book that suggests the cosmos are only six thousand years old has no credibility outside those who who choose to deny scientific evidence

Scientific research is neither propaganda or an oversimplification, it isn't a "novel" treatment in the way you're trying to present it (if propaganda is being used it's by you) again not only has it been around for a long time, many of the clinical trails used variations of S.A.R.S viruses not unlike covid 19

Easy, this is the first pandemic (the reason the platform was developed) since the mrna system has been sufficiently studied

Funny that you ignored the main premise of my post and yet confirmed what I said at the same time. Unless you presuppose the Bible is true, there is zero truth in it and referencing a site like creation.com that goes against EVERY scientific consensus does nothing but prove this

It's your body and neither I nor anyone else can't tell you what to put in it, that being said the mnra platform has been around for a long time and they've been doing clinical trials with it for almost a decade,so your above statement is not supported by facts

Honest question, why do you think your book holds anymore truth then say the Quran, the Pali Canon, the Bhagavad Gita or Dianetics

With all due respect, the Bible answers no questions unless you read it with the presupposition that it is already true. Fictional text(my opinion) written by scribes based on the oral traditions of first century illiterate bronze age fisherman and farmers (scholarly consensus) is nomore reliable then the iliad or huckleberry fin in their ability to provide truth Please don't get me wrong, I support your right to believe in whatever you may choose to, but the idea that your faith in a book can answer scientific queries by those outside your faith is laughable, or do you believe in Allah, Xenu, Brahman or Ahura Mazda as well?

Hahahaha , good one

You've said some batshit crazy things before but blaming the metric system for gas prices maybe my new favorite. I'll put aside the fact that metric is objectively and demonstrably a far better system. That's like getting mad that im shorter in metric because i only measure 1.89 as apossed to imperial where im 6'3. I find it hard to believe that what you spout are sincere opinions and you're not just playing a character. Though I will thank you for reminding me why i stopped coming here

First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis) Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life." Funny no mention of pond or slime there What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim. In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"

Seems so, atheists are in no way a tribe. Atheism still only answers one question, do you possess a god belief? The moral values, ideologies superstitions, philosophical opinions, etc.. . vary widely amongst atheists. Again unlike a religion there is not one book that everyone follows, no authority we must abide by,no specific tenets or ceremonies, etc, etc, etc..... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but understand that what you've put forth in this discussion, is nothing more than that ,your opinion, and does not correspond with the consensus of academia or that of the general public.

No sir, I gave you a definition of atheism, you claimed it was incorrect with no supporting evidence other than random YouTube videos. Again please provide any actual credible source to substantiate your assertion that atheism is a religion.

And there's where we differ, I get my information from credible, recognized sources you get yours from random YouTube poets, who's delusional?

My delusions????? Please provide me with any definition from a credible recognized source that uses idol for atheism

Therfore by your own definition, atheism can not be a religion. And regarding the rest of my post, I'll take your non response as capitulation. Sincerely SH

Geezs, you are so dishonest. I gave specific passages to support my claim, you tried to ignore them, by evoking the new testament by quoting jesus(golden rule), but you're so ignorant to your own holy book you don't even know that jesus was quoting Leviticus. Not to mention you still confuse Hawking and Dawkins(listening to an hour of a debate is a far cry from understanding their perspective) two men very different not only in there field of study, but also in their public personas and when yoy say things like the big bang was an explosion you just prove you know nothing about science. When you claim to already know the truth, you are by definition not open minded, and when you judge others to be evil, well lets just say that if your god exist we'll see each other in hell, but until then I will not engage any further with some as willfully ignorant as you

1. How some random people choose to express their atheism is of no consequence to me. Do you think these supposed pastors speak for an entire philosophy? Do you think these random people speak for atheism as a whole the same way the Pope speaks for Catholicism, or how the bishop of Canterbury speaks for the church of England, or better yet do you think the Pope speaks for all Christians? Of course not. 2. Nope, just the answer to one question, is there a god. You either believe there is one(theist) or you don't(A theist) 3. Dogma is defined(merriam webster) as 1a. Somthing held as an established opinion especially a definite authoritative tenet b.a code of such tenets c. A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. 2. A doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church. Please provide concrete examples of the doctrines of atheism. 4. Of course we all follow rules, the difference, mine can evolve, whilst yours are based on an unchanging book written thousands of years ago. 5,6. Not really sure what you're trying to say, but I'll give it my best shot. Yes all people live under moral and ethical guidelines, personally im a secular humanist, which apparently you (and the data) agree is superior by your statement that "atheists nations are more peaceful and law abiding then the god nations" 7. Again irrelevant 8. Please define "religion" as you understand it. Cheers SH

When you imply I'm somehow demonic or evil, the conversation is over. I'll leave you with some food for thought, you should really at least attempt to understand others perspectives and not simply those who agree with you. Ken ham, eric hovind, ray comfort, etc... are con artists. Try reading anything by Dr. Bart Ehrman, or maybe "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking, or "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins. At least then you won't sound so silly when you talk about people you've clearly never studied.

With all due respect, your knowledge of the bible seems comparable to your understanding of science, wanting. So lets get specific. We could do this same exercise for many of the immoral actions of God in the bible, but lets stick with slavery. Please explain the love thy neighbor part of verses like Exodus 21 or Leviticus 25 and why a moral god wouldn't simply write thou shall not own people as property? Again, the real question is why do we care what the bible says at all? I have read multiple versions of the bible (en deux langues, I was raised by a french Catholic mother and a fundamental baptist father) and am more versed in the text than most professed Christians. The fact that there are as many interpretations as there are people that have read it, to me prove there is no truth in this work of fiction