Spooky coincidences.

[theVOID]

You want to flesh this out for once or just keep going like you are?

Go create a thread, define the God that you believe in and provide reasons why we should believe that he exists.

I know it's something that you've never done before, but give it a go.

[fr0d0]

Haha! You are having a giraffe VOID!

Number one... that's a blatant lie, and I'm sick of your lies. Number two... your pathetic question (being ignorant of it's subject) illustrates perfectly your disinterest in it.

[theVOID]

Oh, so you have a thread here where you state your beliefs clearly and then present an argument for them? I would love to see it, just post a link. If you can prove me wrong i'll gladly retract what I said.

And who are you to say I'm not interested? I've spent months reading arguments for God by some of the best apologists in the game, and I've enjoyed a lot of them and learned a heap in the process, some of the arguments are even somewhat convincing, like the fine-tuning argument. But I clearly did all of this because I'm disinterested right frodo?

If i'm so ignorant of the subject then why don't you enlighten me? Share all of your thoughts and conclusions and make a case for them. That's all i'm asking - It really shouldn't be too much effort for someone as logical and unbiased as yourself now should it?

[fr0d0]

I'm glad you're exploring the subject VOID, I really am. You and I have had said discussions countless times. It ends up with you throwing up some smoke screen of avoidance whilst providing no tangible reasoning in counter. should I respond again and bolster your lies? Or should I ignore the once more pathetic attempt at belittlement. I think the choice is obvious. I think there's little for you to gain here in conflict.

[chasm]

Ironically, your doing the same thing you just said you would do in your post. Or is it supposed to be that way... hmm...

[fr0d0]

If that were a response to half my post, it'd make sense

[theVOID]

I'm glad you're exploring the subject VOID, I really am. You and I have had said discussions countless times. It ends up with you throwing up some smoke screen of avoidance whilst providing no tangible reasoning in counter. should I respond again and bolster your lies? Or should I ignore the once more pathetic attempt at belittlement. I think the choice is obvious. I think there's little for you to gain here in conflict.

You usually just end up making assertions and then blaming everyone else for being biased and ignorant.

Lets start fresh huh? Make that thread and state your case clearly.

[fr0d0]

Well we disagree of course VOID. Doesn't bode well does it? Given our last foray it seems you want to follow your own agenda rather than discuss the subject. What's changed?

I don't know at the moment if I want to be here VOID. You're going to have to take a rain check.

[theVOID]

And again you insist that you are faultless...

You were the one who refused to acknowledge the problems with the history of the bible, the way the texts were mangled and politicised, the forged sections and entire books, the inconsistencies with the gospel accounts etc, even insisting after all of that "The gospels are four different accounts of the same story" which even chronologically can't be true, it was a story that was continually retold and over time gained features that weren't originally there.

I also pointed out the differences between the earliest manuscripts and and the contents of the bible as it is now, especially regarding the doctrine of the trinity, which was added to in attempt to substantiate rather vague passages into the doctrine that was commonly preached.

You dismissed all of it with hardly any (in most cases no) argument at all, it was your usual barrage of assertions and avoiding points of contention all together.

You're thinking of leaving? Shame, i was looking forward to hearing your definition and defence of theism.

[Edwardo Piet]

VOID, have you seen my debate with fr0d0 ages ago in the debate forum? Rofl, we went round and round in circles.