(October 17, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Evie Wrote: I like the forums' rules I think they have improved drastically over the years...

..but I do think there should be something within them to prevent the sort of behavior by forum users such as JBrentonK who are clearly nothing but a disruption the forums and keeps going on about him being the Son of God and he is obviously trolling.... It's hard to define some of these behaviors... that's the problem.

I second the motion.  Even though I have had a bit of fun harassing him.  And who is this Blondie idiot?  No introduction, just a lot of preaching crap.

But what kind of guidelines could be added?  It's even hard to define trolling, because there are so many varieties of crazy.

Jhc preys for blondie k dingdong to be raptured. Preys..

(October 17, 2015 at 9:19 am)Gods Squad Wrote:

(October 17, 2015 at 9:10 am)Irrational Wrote: I didn't say just timeless. I also added the word "creator". Nothing can logically timelessly create. You need time to do anything.

Well nothings impossible for God.

And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."Matthew 19:26

So I take it your God can create something more powerful than itself?

"...with God all things are possible", however its track record for keeping its mouthpieces from getting banned is hilarious.

(October 17, 2015 at 9:58 am)Blondie Wrote: If the atheist is right, nothing happens to me.  If I am right, I will spend eternity in heaven and not the lake of fire.  Your choice, Evie. Not mine.

Not entirely, no. In fact your possibilities of damnation are endless. There's Gehenna, of course. Then there's Jahannam, Naraka and a whole bunch of other unpleasant places where you could spend eternity for slandering the one true god, as you did in this very thread. You're playing the roulette table, just as every other religious person does.

We are merely standing on the side lines, not taking sides. So it's actually you playing Vabanque. You're betting your whole fortune on the number zero, hoping it will come.

(October 17, 2015 at 9:30 am)Blondie Wrote:

(October 17, 2015 at 9:10 am)Irrational Wrote: I didn't say just timeless. I also added the word "creator". Nothing can logically timelessly create. You need time to do anything.

But yet you are putting your faith in a bunch of theories such as the big bang theory, evolution theory, etc.  Theories are excuses for people not to believe in God and be responsible and accountable for their actions.  Matter in scientific terms say that matter is neither created or destroyed.  Therefore you can't make something out of nothing.  Something was there to start it.  Intelligent design.  I think there are some human beings that can't stand the thought of some being being up in the sky controlling what is going on around the human race.

So many flaws in this one small post I don't even know where to start.

First, you don't know what I put my faith in.

Second, I don't put faith in scientific theories in a religious sense. I accept them as true until/unless they're falsified.

Third, a theory is a very good evidence-based explanation of things. It is not the same as speculation. Gravity itself is a theory, did you know that?

Yes, there was no such thing as nothing at all. And you can't create something out of nothing because that's not logical. Therefore, God couldn't have created anything out of nothing.

The universe itself can be that "something". It doesn't have to be God. In fact, God could not have planned things into existence anyway without time. So even God could not have used its mind to create the universe. Therefore, Occam's razor tells us we're better off sticking to the universe itself as the explanation for anything existing.

I think you're too scared to accept the fact that there is no one out there somewhere in the heavens watching over you and keeping you safe for eternity. How's that for a psychoanalysis?

(October 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: I second the motion.  Even though I have had a bit of fun harassing him.  And who is this Blondie idiot?  No introduction, just a lot of preaching crap.

But what kind of guidelines could be added?  It's even hard to define trolling, because there are so many varieties of crazy.

That's the problem, defining the rules so it could actually prevent users who were clearly here to waste time, annoy and disrupt and add nothing positive.

Problem is what rules could be added without getting some people banned unjustly? Because that would be no good at all.

But it is a shame we don't have some kind of troll detection device because at the moment there is no way to really prove that someone is trolling in the sense of going out of their way to disrupt. If that is their only purpose of being here it's a pity that there's no way to define the rules to prevent users who are here to do absolutely nothing but make it less enjoyable for others.

Why are you after this ignoramus anyway? (No offense to our member, of course) Fundamentally ignorant persons can be a bit of a nuisance, but if you're out to ban every uninformed idiot, you have your work cut out for you. Also, I see no reason to ban an idiot for being an idiot.

If this turns out to be a Poe or a sock, it's bye the bye anyway.

(October 17, 2015 at 9:30 am)Blondie Wrote: matter is neither created or destroyed.  Therefore you can't make something out of nothing.#

If matter can be neither created nor destroyed then you don't need to make something out of nothing. It means that the universe has always existed. The Big Bang was just one particular state and we do not know what happened before the Big Bang.

(October 17, 2015 at 9:30 am)Blondie Wrote:   Something was there to start it. 

How did this being start it all if it cannot create energy or matter?

(October 17, 2015 at 9:30 am)Blondie Wrote: Intelligent design. 

Like parasitic wasps? Ebola? Men having nipples? Birth deformities? Ticks giving us Lymes disease?

If America was founded by Europeans, why are there still Europeans? If you came from your mother, why is she still here?

Do you see why that argument against EbNS is vapid?