Jump to content

Verdius

Members
  • Content count

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Verdius

  • Rank
    Experienced Fellow
  • Birthday 04/24/1988

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Verdius
  • MSN
    VerdiusValentius@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://

Additional Information

  • Location
    The ether stream.
  • Interests
    If you'd really like to know you'd ask me now wouldn't you? ;)
  1. Six needs to either learn to read what's being said or stop causing a commotion imo. As for the quote here I'd just like to step in and say Buddha never claimed divinity and buddhism itself has no god/s. It's actually compatible with Christianity and just about every other way of life.
  2. Verdius

    Blair converts to Catholicism

    I couldn't help and respond to point out the same thing, isn't this just about what every Christian wants to to? I smell hypocrisy in our midsts... I also can't help but find the idea that someone will try and bring peace to the world marking them to be the supposed antichrist to be nothing more than a self fulfilling prophecy. There have been after all many people that have attempted to bring peace to the world. I mean after all who doesn't want world peace? Nothing but stupid imo.
  3. Verdius

    Maybe what we need is another tradjety...

    Yeah seriously, how can you even think such a thing that's just terrible. Sure people coming together is good but not through tragedy and the death of others WHAT ARE YOU INSANE? Really I'm outraged by this, did you think about what you were saying at all? Yes, it is.[/b] You're disgusting. Sure we should protect those around us but there is never a good reason to kill someone! Never! Not even protecting another life justifies killing someone else! Whatever happened to love your enemy?
  4. Verdius

    Rocks and Pins

    It's a contradiction because of the definition of omnipotence, it's as easy as that which is the very point of the question.
  5. Verdius

    What about Non-Christians..?

    Mind if I agree with this whole heartedly? It doesn't take a hard look to see all too many people throwing Bible Versus everywhere that they end up annoying people with unwanted preaching or to end up being overall jerks about it. Not that I want people to shut up over it entirely, but there is a very big difference between preaching and discussing a topic with people. From my own personal experience I also find such Christians that convey their message through their actions over all much more pleasant and enjoyable to be around and typically what I'd consider the most Christian of all as they tend to (More than others that love to preach/evangelize.) follow Jesus Christ's example more closely. Just my two cents anyway.
  6. Verdius

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    This is as stupid as asking who's a gravitist or quantum mechanicist, please stop it. Not being mean here but just putting it bluntly. As for the rest of what you said Reincarnate and NotAStageHand pretty much took care of it for me. lol no but it was sake-inspired XD.
  7. Verdius

    Pastafarian

    Sorry, it's just I don't take kindly to condescending attitudes and unwarranted sarcasm.
  8. Verdius

    Pastafarian

    You're such a nice Christian JAG being so immature and condescending all the time. I know you weren't arguing for them that's not what what I had said. Do learn what an illogical fallacy is JAG then maybe you'll learn a new word, hmm? Wrong. My friend converting the moment her mother because she couldn't imagine not seeing her again is all the evidence that's needed to show that. People not believing can also happen as in someone refusing to believe because something terrible happens. Sort of the opposite of how my friend reacted would be an example. I suppose you're right about what I said not making sense since it does take faith but the point is the only reason he did convert was because of his son's death. And how do I know that? Try reading a history book sometime, they're wonderful I assure you you'll love them. You were however using them to show that some great thinkers are inclined to believe in a supernatural creator of sorts as if it makes it all the more plausible. Christian or not I don't care, their cases still do not go to help you at all. Possible but that's an unknown any anything else is just your assumption. Knock it off with that already. And may I also remind you that them being Christian has no relevance to this. If you think it does then what I've said entirely went over your head. Little buddies? JAG you need to get off your high horse and learn some humility because you know jack, seriously. You have a fantastic tendency to go around about how you've read about other religions and read into some philosophy and then suddenly speak as if you're some sort of authoritative figure on everything you say. The problem is you're not and you don't know half as much as you seem to think to put it lightly. Here I'll make it simple and show you what's wrong so even you can comprehend it. 1: You listed off various famous intellectuals to strengthen your case simple because of their own preferences. That happens to be a fallacy. 2: I never said anything about the importance of them being Christian or not, no where did I say that was of relevance. What I did say however is that (Christian or not) they dodn't help your case. 3: As a Christian I thought you'd have more humility than you do but apparently not. You make a lot of childish and pointless comments that are completely unnecessary, learn to grow up JAG you're the one that's ahead of themselves. Actually it does in my case since whenever I look at the screen I feel like vomiting. I tend to get much sicker than others which makes it no surprise I've died from being sick before. Really like to make a lot of assumptions don't you? You're really such a know it all aren't you? By the way you never even asked a question, just who are you trying to impress here? BTW reading over the thread I think this only goes to prove someone's point even more. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm
  9. Verdius

    CTF Official Evolution/YEC Debate

    The little bit of life in the beginning would have been suited to live in it's environment, that's the premise of evolution that we change to fit our container. If we're infexible we die, much like the English army during the American Revolution. Our little rage-tag armed forces adapted to more modern day style fighting while the English marched in their old outdated firing lines.And to be clear although abiogenesis and evolution are not the same the principle of adaptation is the same here. So I'm sure you can see that tossing a slab of bacon onto the ground won't really get far. Along with being dead as well as Reincarnate already pointed out. To touch even more on this subject have you ever heard of someone saying, "If we lived any further away or closer to the sun we wouldn't be able to live." ? Now at first it sounds like a great argument for saying maybe some sort of god just did create us and in our perfect container but if you think about it deeper it actually only goes the other way around. Naturally we're only going to be able to live if conditions are right so is it any wonder Earth is in a rotation a good distance for life (As we know it.) to exist? If anything the best evidence for any sort of supernatural would be a universe and world in which nothing added up or made any calculable sense from which we could not make any predictions but so far it's only been the opposite. Then I think I'd be rather glaring that something was showing off how that it could defy any known common sense/knowledge/or understanding. Either that or the universe would be a complete unknowable mystery. Verdius Chapter 1: Verdius will grow a second head and fly tomorrow Verdius Chapter 2: And he grew a second head and flew into the air. As you can see the second chapter shows that the prophecy came true so obviously it must have happened. I mean my book says it right there clear as day. Of course there are no other outside sources to re-affirm this claim but we can ignore that... can't we? This is an example of circular logic. Reading that example you can see that a book predicting something in itself doesn't really prove anything other than it was written. If there were other outside or third party sources to confirm Christ's Resurrection then we'd have valid evidence but as it's nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy it remains as circular evidence. That was for your information now why did I tell you this? Because on one hand you have the circular reasoning of the Resurrection that you used and then the TOE which does not rely on circular evidence but instead is backed by a large number of sciences. You can't even have modern day biology without it as it's the basis for it. Then there's the study of genes, geology, germ theory etc. so there's really quite a bit going for it. Now I'm not trying to discredit the resurrection (Though I guess I did.) but only to show you that there's really no comparison between the two as one has evidence from it from many varied and individual fields of research and the other... all comes down to one book. Anyway on a side note when it comes to the importance of your faith try thinking WWJD, because I really doubt he'd care if there was evolution or not he just wanted peace and love and all that good stuff. There is no good reason at all to detest or be so against the thought of evolution other than people just taking Genesis too literally. Yeah that tickled my funny bone.
  10. Verdius

    Pastafarian

    Your argument from authority fails JAG, this entire post is a fallacy. I must also correct your use of certain figures. -Abraham Lincoln only converted after the death of his son, it was out of grief and not true faith of belief. -Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god which is the spinoza's god. It's more of a figure of speach on appreciating the beauty in the world than some sort of invisible man. -Same with Spinoza -Darwin was agnostic in his later year of life so if anything that works against you. In fact each of the above mentioned don't really help your case. As for Hawking he refuses to "Answer god questions" as he puts so making an assumption about him will only make a... well you know, of yourself. I'm sure you know the saying. Do you have any idea how wrong you are? It's not a theory ID is nothing but attempting to find flaws in the TOE, there is no theory behind it as well as no evidence. The most amusing thing about ID is if it found evidence to discredit evolution then it would at the same time be finding evidence to provide an only superior theory in place over the TOE which would only be shooting themselves in the foot. To have such information there must be an intelligent force behind it? Please explain why there must be a force behind it. There is no defense for a theory that lacks evidence and actually existing. I'll be kind and repeat myself here, ID does nothing other than to seek out flaws and attempt to discredit evolution and that does not nor ever will = science. No it doesn't and there's a rather clever and deceptive reason for this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_fo...ught_and_Ethics That actually happens to be where the modern day concept comes from. The creators of ID itself have stated themselves that it is infact the Judeo-Christian god that's being referred to. It wasn't originally even called ID (I forget, been a while since I bothered with it.) but in an underhanded attempt to pass creationism (Yes, that's what it is if the events don't occur naturally.) off as legitimate science they renamed it to Intelligent Design. So there goes that claim and just about the whole post from the looks of it as ID is nothing more than Christian creationists trying to slip in a Trojan horse into the science and academic systems. EDIT: Nice to be back after being so crappily sick for so long.
  11. Verdius

    Eternal existence

    It's late, I'll say more on this until tomorrow until then I'll leave it at this. While it is true atheism is the absence of belief in god/s or any other invisible friends (Another name for persona which cannot be seen. This is irrelevant though just as your comment was.) does not mean that everything or anything has occurred naturally. Yes, one might assume that if people do not believe in a supernatural creation of any sort the only option is to fall back onto naturalistic reasons. However it is still not a requirement to be an atheist nor do all atheists think this the case. Two examples why. 1: Atheism is the disbelief in gods. That's the bottom line it ends there not another step further. So a person that doesn't believe in gods never has to bother themselves with thinking where precisely everything came from. 2: Atheism is not the disbelief of the supernatural which leaves room for the belief that a powerful (Yet not godly) being created our universe. There's probably more but I just don't care that much to think of any others, those two are enough. Now stop making arguments based on fallacies please.
  12. Verdius

    Rocks and Pins

    Yes, good job in showing a god can't be beyond logic. Basically it coincides with what I said. Either God's omnipotence is a paradox or it's a logical omnipotence being able to do all things that aren't as such contradiction. I really don't see why anyone would be so upset to having a logical god unless they find the idea of god being subservient to logic blasphemy?
  13. Verdius

    Rocks and Pins

    Again he says speaks but nothing is actually said. Would you mind pointing out why it is exactly?
  14. Verdius

    Secular discusion of abortion

    Nice as would I, however I suppose I should be clearer or else the point of the question will not be seen. -There is no hope of saving both and to attempt it would be suicide.- I know, it's a bit extreme but still a question with a point.
×