₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
I went through your links. Where was it stated Israel existed before 1947?

MaxInDHouse:
Good morning!

The highlighted caught my attention after reading the OP.
I am Maximus one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I believe in LOGICAL REASONING but then can you and i reason together as mature individuals without insulting one another?

StillDtruth:
Fallacy and shift from post.

The topic was Nostra and prophecies but now you have craftily shifted post to creation stories and bible falling short on True events.

Whereas, Isreal's return to their land in 1947 is looking at you!

If only people would learn and see that you atheists make invalid arguments!

MightySparrow:
You are right. We are not talking about new things but someone who see all things transforming but remains unchanged and unperturbed.

JessicaRabbit:
I'm still waiting to see you provide actual evidence for the God you believe in.

JessicaRabbit post: Speaking of history, it's fascinating how some of you Christians cherry-pick events that fit your narrative while ignoring the plethora of contradictions and inaccuracies within the Bible. It's like selectively quoting a scientist to support one's claims while disregarding the overwhelming consensus. At least atheists rely on evidence, logic, and reason to construct our arguments. We don't rely on faith, which is merely a euphemism for "I don't need evidence."

JessicaRabbit:
I'm still waiting to see you provide actual evidence for the God you believe in.

MightySparrow:
I am living proof. He created me what about you?

StillDtruth:
Evidence, Logic, sound reason, all dictate that co debators must argue on the issue of the debate, So, this is you,.moving from topic to topic all because you could not reasonably attend to the issue on point, so you atheist shift the post as you have now done in complaining about contradictions and inaccuracies whereas, we are waiting on you to attend to nostra and prophecies. In violation of logic, reason and evidence.

AlbertNewton:
What sort of evidence will convince you of the existence of a God?

MightySparrow:
I am living proof. He created me what about you?

JessicaRabbit:
I had to read the conversations back and forth between the both of us to understand your post here and I find it very interesting that you can casually accuse me of "moving from topic to topic" and "shifting the post". It's a clever case of projection from you, considering the fact that our correspondence has been a masterclass in evasion from your own side. I've been consistently addressing the topic, while you've been expertly dodging and weaving around the uncomfortable facts I've presented. Regarding the contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'd say it's quite relevant to the debate actually, considering your entire worldview is built upon the assumption that this book is infallible. It's not a complaint, but a critical examination of the very foundation of your beliefs, so you really have no point there. Just because I didn't buy MightySparrow's "Moses knew the story of creation because... magic" explanation or suggestion doesn't mean I'm dodging the topic. I'm simply saying that if anyone wants to rely on evidence, logic, and reason (as you claimed), then let's apply those standards to his/her own claims.

Nostradamus' prophecies, just like the Bible's, are open to interpretation and have been cherry-picked to fit various narratives. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Bible's contradictions and inaccuracies are glossed over, while atheists are expected to provide exhaustive explanations for every. single. detail.

Perhaps you need to understand that evidence, logic, and reason don't just magically appear when it's convenient. They require consistent application, not selective interpretation. So, let's either have a genuine discussion or agree to disagree -- but please, spare me the "you're dodging the topic" rhetoric when I'm simply holding your claims to the same standards you claim to uphold.

jaephoenix:
Babe where have you been? Missed you. You have been schooling these dvllards for too long. Even our second most crazy resident madman DTruthSpeaker becomes civil while discoursing with you

Wilgrea7:
I've read the Bible.. I'm yet to see any evidence of the god you're describing in there.

I'm not saying your god does not exist.. but so far, I'm yet to see any tangible evidence that suggests it does.

JessicaRabbit:
I had to read the conversations back and forth between the both of us to understand your post here and I find it very interesting that you can casually accuse me of "moving from topic to topic" and "shifting the post". It's a clever case of projection from you, considering the fact that our correspondence has been a masterclass in evasion from your own side. I've been consistently addressing the topic, while you've been expertly dodging and weaving around the uncomfortable facts I've presented. Regarding the contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'd say it's quite relevant to the debate actually, considering your entire worldview is built upon the assumption that this book is infallible. It's not a complaint, but a critical examination of the very foundation of your beliefs, so you really have no point there. Just because I didn't buy MightySparrow's "Moses knew the story of creation because... magic" explanation or suggestion doesn't mean I'm dodging the topic.I'm simply saying that if anyone wants to rely on evidence, logic, and reason (as you claimed), then let's apply those standards to his/her own claims.

Nostradamus' prophecies, just like the Bible's, are open to interpretation and have been cherry-picked to fit various narratives. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Bible's contradictions and inaccuracies are glossed over, while atheists are expected to provide exhaustive explanations for every. single. detail.

Perhaps you need to understand that evidence, logic, and reason don't just magically appear when it's convenient. They require consistent application, not selective interpretation. So, let's either have a genuine discussion or agree to disagree -- but please, spare me the "you're dodging the topic" rhetoric when I'm simply holding your claims to the same standards you claim to uphold.

StillDtruth:
I think you guys keep equate your personal not-acceptance/dislike for a fact with evidence and logic.

Logic and evidence lives beyond peoples desires, wishes and personal preference.

So you committed those infractions because you allowed your personal position override your prove of your argument by law and logic

And you are already holding christians to that standard so it is duly applied to every one who debates here.

StillDtruth:
I think you guys keep equate your personal not-acceptance/dislike for a fact with evidence and logic.

Logic and evidence lives beyond peoples desires, wishes and personal preference.

So you committed those infractions because you allowed your personal position override your prove of your argument by law and logic.

And you are already holding christians to that standard so it is duly applied to every one who debates here.

JessicaRabbit:
My "personal not-acceptance" or "dislike" for a fact is not the issue here. The issue is the lack of empirical evidence and logical coherence in your arguments. I'm not rejecting your claims because of personal preference; I'm rejecting them because they fail to[b]meet the standards of evidence, logic, and reaso[/b]n that you claim to uphold. You accuse me of allowing my personal position to override my proof, when that's precisely what you're doing. Once again, you're only projecting your own inadequacies on to me.

StillDtruth:
See your words "meet the standards of evidence, logic, and reason" betray you for this standard is according to who? You.

Therefore your judgment is based on your personal acceptance/rejection and not based on.Law /Logic/Evidence, for if you truly.did know this standard then you would know that.proof has been given

JessicaRabbit:
The standards of evidence, logic, and reason are not mine, nor are they arbitrary. They're the result of centuries of philosophical and scientific development, refined through the contributions of countless thinkers and experts. These standards are the foundation of critical thinking, empirical inquiry, and intellectual honesty.

All I'm seeking for is arguments which align with the principles of logic, the scientific method, and the pursuit of objective truth. My personal acceptance or rejection is completely irrelevant. The focus here is on the collective efforts of humanity to establish a framework for evaluating claims and arguments.

I think it's becoming quite obvious that you cannot meet these standards and that is why you prefer to believe that I'm imposing my own personal standards. If you're suggesting that these standards are merely a product of my personal preference, then I'd love to see your alternative framework for evaluating evidence and arguments. I'm eager to learn about this novel approach that bypasses centuries of intellectual progress. As for me, I'd rather rely on the time-tested standards that have propelled human knowledge forward. The claims you've made so far, on the other hand, will remain unconvincing without empirical evidence and logical coherence.

Kingsempires:
Do the maths. So you don't believe there is God but there are mysterious things that proves that God exit

StillDtruth:
The bold is exactly my point with the adfition that they have been done already.

That is why we have The Laws of Logic for validity and Truth of arguments and The Laws of Evidence for proof of Truths via proper evidence, among other Laws.

And it is them who raised the invalidity and wrongfulness of your counter.argument to mightysparrow's case.

If you look, you would see i have not made any claim to you however, i am.watching to see if you truly and properly countered sparrows claim which you did not as i.have already pointed out.

So, these universal Laws are the basis of my objection to your answers for the rules and laws of proof of Truth has been identified and set already.which is why God and the bible have been acceptable and upheld even centuries after by every.reasonable person.

Kingsempires:
Anyboby that said there is no God is on his/her own

StillDtruth:
The bold is exactly my point with the adfition that they have been done already.

That is why we have The Laws of Logic for validity and Truth of arguments and The Laws of Evidence for proof of Truths via proper evidence, among other Laws.

And it is them who raised the invalidity and wrongfulness of your counter.argument to mightysparrow's case.

If you look, you would see i have not made any claim to you however, i am.watching to see if you truly and properly countered sparrows claim which you did not as i.have already pointed out.

So, these universal Laws are the basis of my objection to your answers for the rules and laws of proof of Truth has been identified and set already.which is why God and the bible have been acceptable and upheld even centuries after by every.reasonable person.

JessicaRabbit:
Perhaps you didn't quite understand the comment I made in response to MightySparrow. I was simply trying to illustrate that prophetic pronouncements, whether biblical or not, are often vague and open to interpretation. Your dedication to the Bible as a historical authority is admirable, but you must acknowledge the distinction between faith and evidence-based reasoning. While the Bible is a sacred text for many, it's crucial to consider the findings of scientific inquiry and historical research, which have led to a more nuanced understanding of the past. Science, with its self-correcting nature and reliance on empirical evidence, has challenged the accuracy of certain biblical accounts. For instance, the scientific consensus on evolution, geology, and archaeology has shed light on the origins of humanity, the age of the Earth, and the history of civilizations, most of which may differ from the popular biblical narratives.

Now, I'm glad that we seem to share a common ground in valuing the importance of logical reasoning and evidence-based evaluation. However, I'd like to highlight that the Bible, as a sacred text, does present challenges when examined through the lens of logical consistency and empirical evidence, defying the very "Laws of Logic and Evidence" you hold so dearly. It contains accounts that seem to contradict each other, and some narratives that may be considered fantastical or miraculous, which can be difficult to reconcile with the laws of logic and evidence. A common example to highlight is the difference between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, both having different sequences of events. You also have the resurrection accounts in the Gospels which have varying details. If you genuinely seek truth and understanding, you must learn to apply the laws of logic and evidence consistently, without selectively choosing which parts of the Bible to scrutinize and which to accept without question.

As for the claim that "reasonable people" have upheld the Bible for centuries, I think that's a vast oversimplification. Our comprehension of the world has evolved over the years, which means that what was deemed reasonable in the past, when the Earth was believed to be flat, may not withstand the scrutiny of present-day understanding. I'm not advocating for religious people to abandon their faiths, but rather, to integrate critical thinking to complement it. When it comes to historical and natural world inquiries, it's more efficacious and intellectually honest to employ methodologies like logic and the scientific method, that have consistently augmented human knowledge.

JessicaRabbit:
Perhaps you didn't quite understand the comment I made in response to MightySparrow. I was simply trying to illustrate that prophetic pronouncements, whether biblical or not, are often vague and open to interpretation.

Your dedication to the Bible as a historical authority is admirable, but you must acknowledge the distinction between faith and evidence-based reasoning....

StillDtruth:
Ambiguity and vagueness is always cleared with the happening of an event. Not to talk of the fact that there was no vagueness when God fore said Isreal shall be 2 countries. And historians confirm that,

Only for God to also fore Say that they would be 1 again, and thishas been so even till today.

Not to talk of the present world calamity and hatred and distance among family members.

No ambiguity in these things and all these evidenced and more, you and i and the world are clear and direct witnesses to the Truth and real eye-ity of these prophecies.

JessicaRabbit:
Hindsight is 20/20, so it's very easy to retrofit prophecies to fit events that have already occurred. The fact that some events may seem to clarify vague predictions doesn't necessarily translate to evidence-based reasoning. .

JessicaRabbit:
Also, I'd argue that the division and reunification of Israel can be explained by historical and political factors, rather than divine intervention
As for the "present world calamity and hatred and distance among family members", I'd say that's more a result of human nature and societal complexities than any divine prophecy.

StillDtruth:
Ses ow, you have shifted post from foresight ("vague and open to interpretation." to hindsight now that i have answered your goresight.

And even more, these events are still.playing out in our presence and in our eyes, so no one is looking backwards

All in all you have now admited and confessed that these prophecies happened. And no one cares how/why they happened.

The most important thing about a prophecy is that it must happen undisputably. AND YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED THAT.

So, case closed

God is proven!

JessicaRabbit:
I'm not sure how this red herring detracts any points from my main argument that prophecies are often so vague and inherently malleable that they can be retrofitted to fit various outcomes.

JessicaRabbit:
So what if those events still play out today? You haven't established any actual fact. You're still only selectively focusing on events that seem to align with the prophecies while ignoring the multitude of contradictory evidence or, at the very least, alternative explanations, and that is a textbook case of confirmation bias.

JessicaRabbit:
This is just an ambitious leap of faith. For starters, I think you have prematurely popped the champagne cork. If we're in the court of reason, then we're still in the opening statements phase. You need to bring on the evidence, and then we can get this trial started. Acknowledging that an event occurred is not tantamount to admitting divine intervention. I can agree that the sky is blue without attributing it to a celestial paint job.

JessicaRabbit:
Besides, if we're playing the "prophecy fulfillment" game, I can predict with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Will that make me a prophet? Please, do tell.