SkyHigh

You're complete lack of morals pale only to your utter lack of class You are a truly miserable, dishonest person.

The saddest part, I actually think you believe that FYI. I will no longer be responding to you.

I see that more as a badge of honor than a condemnation of your opinions.

I fùckin started responding before I had seen your link, then had to erase the whole thing, it's a shame for both of us though,my witty retorts were quite clever. Hahaha It appears I was mistaken and the idea that a parent can be compelled by the legal system as to how he interacts with his own children is disgusting (of course excluding safety etc ) maybe a little dickish, but no where near the level that should require prosecution I did notice that the actual charge was contempt ,in my understanding this is related to ones conduct in the court room or a dictate from a judge, but I may be wrong (honestly the only legal "training" I've received was with the young offender system when I was a kid, but that's a whole other discussion, hahaha). This is definitely a semantic issue but I still feel it's important. I didn't notice in the article the decision handed down from his charter challenge, do you know what the resolution to that was?

I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. The Charter had been around for a long time, and if such things were possible, they would have already been adjudicated by someone. I don't see how refusing to use someones preferred pronoun could be considered hate anymore than calling a homosexual a fág, or a woman a bítch and this forum alone proves that, or half the people here would have faced criminal charges by now. But maybe I missed something. I believe you to be an honest interlocutor (one of the few here) therefore I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree) and invite you to potentially expand my understanding of your point.

Oh you have gods number? Or do you think he's talking to you audibly? So, still no argument Maybe you don't understand how it works, the person that makes the claim has what's called "the burden of proof" that means that they must support their assertions. In this case you are asserting god exists, I do not accept that claim, therefore you must provide evidence. Ok, now you can ignore what I said (along with all reason and logic) and just call me a pervert, because that's all you have. Sad little man.

So no argument, gotcha (as in I understand not as in a gotcha question, no need for that you do it to yourself) Sad little man Bye now!

Dude you literally created a post out of whole cloth then falsely attributed it to me. The dishonesty required to do that speaks volumes to your character. Didn't you mute me because I think drunk drivers should loose their lincences permanently? Then you take a shot at my upbringing, is there no depth to your immorality? Then again ,what can I expect from someone who thinks they should be celebrated for not having driven drunk , for a whole year Get off the sauce son, I can hear you slurring your words just reading you. Oh yes, you should definitely go to Ukraine a) because people with such low morals as you have don't contribute to free and fair society, and. b) the roads will be safer for those that do obey traffic laws, because most people care about how their actions effect others

Seriously? Apologies, light was day one, plants day three and the SUN day four , but light without sun doesn't really make sense and you can't get photosynthesis from a flash light. So my point is still valid This is the only question that matters because if god doesn't exist we know the Bible is false. The rest of what you're saying is just fluff because you can't provide a positive argument that supports the core issue of any argument about god. Does he exist! So do you have any positive, logically sound, deductively valid inferences that provided the capacity to predict or evidence that exclusively (or at least allows us to exclude other major world views) support that assertion, or are you just going to continue to play semantic games?

Nope, just stated the scientific consensus, seriously just google "is infinity a number". I did after my first comment on the topic just to confirm I wasn't talking out my ass. So if there was a hint of superiority it is more related to your unwillingness to challenge what you believe. Not being able to divide by zero is remedial math And the concept of infinity is introduced in early high school Try harder son

I've read the Bible cover to cover, I grew up in more than one Christian foster home. So still no argument for god eh? How long before you just admit there is none ? At least some Christians will acknowledge it's about faith not facts, but you're not even that honest or maybe just not that smart, oh why quibble everyone knows it's both and when you add your impotence, both phallic and mental you see why the only feeling you evoke in me is pity So any evidence of your sky daddy?

While you are correct that this doesn't definitively prove that god doesn't exist, it is certainly part of the cumulative case against the existence of God. God by definition is not falsifiable, this is a problem for people like me that use reason, logic and the scientific method to come to conclusions. The scientific method (therefore logic and reason) is all about DISproving what we think we know. Science does not make truth claims.Period Comparing a tri omni God,reveling the truth of his creation, to be recorded by man, in his inerrant word, that is to be used to bring all of his children to salvation and a math teacher following a syllabus, that is designed to instruct students in a methodical way to understand theories and formulas and then PROVE (because math uses abstract objects (numbers) to represent aspects of reality it is the only science that makes any claims of proof, the rest just use models based on our current understanding) the validity of said theories and formulas. 2+2 will always equal 4 (at least using classical logic, hahaha. I wonder if you got that joke) is pretty much you waving the white flag If gods revelation is in any way analogous to an underpaid, overworked, kindergarten teacher, how powerful can he be? I have physically witnessed all of my teachers and gained tangible, quantifiable knowledge from most by simply being present. But after searching diligently for many years (and still am to some extent) for any god or gods and have found no evidence (in fact I've found the contrary) nor any knowledge or wisdom that can't be found elsewhere (read that last part carefully, I'm not saying the Bible is void of knowledge or wisdom just that is not exclusive to Christianity) Now, I have given honest responses to why I don't believe, if you can't actually respond to them and are simply going to come back with nah han or an insult, just don't bother responding, because for me that will signify that you are not looking for the same kind of conversation I am and I will no longer interact (not that I think it would bother you) I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible. So if you could provide a positive argument for the existence of God, remembering that the Bible is the claim not the evidence. I will gladly listen and if it's a strong argument may even alter my world view. If not, kick rocks

Ok last time, you're arguing against something that no educated person would contest and I don't find that interesting And since I have no interest in debating with someone so far detached from reality. I will wish you a wonderful day and sincerely hope you find the courage to honestly evaluate how your world view fails to correspond to the reality we all share.

Oh you're starting to get it, π is great example. Infinity is used to describe a set of numbers often between to points. Ie: if you take a ruler and divide it in half, theoretically you will have infinite measurements, but because numbers must be finite and infinity has no numerological value it is not used in hard math, but is simply a place holder to better explain a concept. This is not controversial, this is the consensus of the entirety of science

Ran away? Please There's no reason to argue with someone so ignorant of math, you might as well be arguing 2+2=647.

Wow , how many ways can you be wrong. First and most important, the fact that the Bible doesn't provide explanations beyond the understanding of the time, supports my argument. Either the Bible was written by bronze age goat farmers or god lacks the power or the knowledge to reveal the truth of his creation. Second, the biblical account of creation (either of the two different accounts) goes against what science has demonstrated. ie: in the Bible the plants came before the sun and I could do the same for almost the entirety of the creation story. So, explain that?

My lord, you're absolutely terrible at this.

Nope, because a question is never an argument . Saying " then where do they come from" has no premises (honest question, do you know what a premise is?,) and zero deductively valid inferences to support your conclusion. You're lying, I mentioned creation and then included the other parts of Genesis (the book you mentioned) because it's the same science that proves it all wrong. Moving the goal posts would be if I mentioned all the other books in the Bible science has demonstrated to be false Again you're lying, I did address what you said but the fact is you haven't provided any deductive inferences that I could rebut. So, can you make a positive argument for the existence of God? , (I'm not expecting a syllogism but saying it's true because the Bible tells me so, is ludicrous on face value, because again the Bible is the claim, not the evidence)

So no actual counter argument?

No, they are literally the opposite of an argument. An argument is defined as a group of propositions that follow each other based on deductively valid inferences that support the truth of the premises in the conclusion. Science has demonstrated that Genesis is fiction , from creation to Noah's ark First, I've probably read the Bible more than you. Second, you've never heard me speak against the teachings of Jesus, in fact I have mentioned numerous times that most of the words attributed to him were thoughtful and are worth following. Where I do disagree ,is that he was any more than one of the plethora of itinerant, apocalyptic, messianic preachers of the time but was born of a virgin, preformed miracles and came back from the dead. You have an argument for that? Remember answering a question with a question (unless it's simply to clarify) is not an argument Bigoted? Nope, pithy yes But the idea that an unembodied , eternal mind has a gender is just silly and I would suggest that it's your bigotry that finds it impossible to believe that the "creator of the universe" could be anything but a man

I'm not sure I agree. The Charter had been around for a long time and I don't recall it ever being used to stifle simple speech. There have and still continue to be, bigots, racists, misogynists , homophobes , etc.. and I can think of no cases where in anyone faced criminal charges and Peterson is intelligent enough to know that adding gender expression to the protected classes won't change the law in any tangible way. I did not share that view, I always thought he was a bit of a blow hard. I think he's a very smart man ,that realized his command of the English language allowed him to just use big words that lean to one side of the political spectrum in a way that nobody could really understand (because he's not actually saying anything) I think most. (I'm sure some people with advanced degrees did) of his fans heard him talk about not agreeing with the "tranz movement" and just latched on and won't admit they don't understand a word of what he says.

Questions aren't arguments. But to answer the question, I don't know (which is often the most intelligent thing one can say) but neither do you, your book is the claim not evidence. So, you must prove your god exists before she can have any explanatory powers

Not my opinion, it's the law The case (that's even a loaded word because it tends to refer to legal proceedings) you cited was nothing more than an internal matter based on the policies of a private organization and Shepard was not charged criminally, the situation never went above the university level and she faced no repercussions. If you don't like the Charter that's fine (weird but fine) but your opinion is just that an opinion and not factual. Again if you have an example of someone being charged and convicted by our legal system I will amend my views but you have yet to support your assertions.

I very much enjoy the parables, they for the most part are stories that contain good morals and aren't tied to some magical sky fairy. Akin to Aesop's faibles. Now, for the third or fourth time, justify that your god exists.

Wow you're pathetic, you can't dispute anything I say so your forced to invent post and attribute them to me Are you drunk?