Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine what he'll do -this- time.....kindoff a hothead, that "god" fella. Maybe he'll give everyone aids...................

: shrugs :

[emjay]

Okay Drich, you win. Enjoy it and commence strutting. I have no specific citations to offer you. The best I can do is point you towards the main book I learnt all of this from and which the closest thing I've got to a Bible... the book that changed my life: Computational Explorations In Cognitive Neuroscience

Then book chapter and verse in your 'bible' please and a link to it.

But to truly understand what I'm talking about you'd pretty much have to read the whole thing and actually take it in. So the best I can offer is an attempt at a summary and this post from another thread -

If that's the case then wouldn't your/one's extrapolation Completely depend on a 'bias' to come to the specific conclusion you did? Otherwise one could point to a chapter or even a few paragraphs that a given precept being discussed hinges on... If however one has to read a whole book or have specialized training that underscores just one aspect of a person's psyche, then isn't that special 'training' No different than what you are attributing to the followers of God? (A brainwashing that has one seeing God in everything, or in your case see 'bias' in everything not in your training?)
So then what's the difference between what you are doing and what you claim Christians are doing? How is your 'brainwashing' better than any other brand?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40435-po...pid1193511 - explains pretty well the neural network dynamics I'm talking about here. It's not about bias specifically but it is covered and that's what I mean by bias in this context... the biasing effect specific to bidirectional neural networks like the Cerebral Cortex and which is at the core of its functioning. But if my word is worthless then obviously you don't have to read it, but it's there if you want to.

sorry the link does not work.
It redirects me to a google search which takes me to the AF.org main page.
And your right. your 'interpretation/brainwashing' is what is in question here, so you can 'peacock' all you like with what you think you know, but again unless you can cite something to support what you have said it is all meaningless.
I am just holding you to the same standards you all hold me. If you can't produce ANYTHING that supports your position then your words are truly meaningless. They simply become the 'flourish' of a proud, but clueless individual who's words only have meaning to those with their or revers their very specific brand of brainwashing... Otherwise that type of person could indeed produce source material when asked for the very purpose of being scrutinized by others.

The fact that you can only point to your own personal biased writings and thoughts literally scream of all the thing you claim Christians do. So then the question becomes why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander? Why are you allowed bias in what you believe, but condemn it everywhere else unless it is first filtered through your specific brand of bias?

And yes of course I'm affected by bias, everybody is...

see the last question

it's core to how the brain functions. Wherever there is strong emotion there is bias. I'm biased against Christianity as a whole and certain individual Christians, including you, to the extent that they anger me. And that anger and bias in turn leads to douchebaggery. You're a douche, I'm a douche and as long as we both see each other that way neither of us is going to convince the other of anything because there is too much bias involved.

So it is your belief that even in your angered state that you can correctly identify bias, without any guidlines/source material that holds you accountable from moving the goal posts in your christian bias witch hunt?

I can't quote book, chapter and verse because I don't have the book with me. I moved in with my sister for a while and only took what I really needed so that book is still at home on my bookshelf. Though I guess you'll think that's a lie.

The link does work for me, but if you say it doesn't work for you it's under Philosophy>Seeing Red (thread) post #323

There's not much I can say because you've taken it out of context from the very start. But that's my fault not yours. I should've learned a long time ago that it's not wise to use a technical understanding of a term when there is a popular and emotive use of the term in play. It just ends in them getting conflated and perhaps also by me.

I was talking about very dry subject matter in the context of a heated and emotive discussion and that was just stupidity on my part. I was just trying to talk about neural contexts. There's no bias involved in my interpretation... that's exactly how they work - objectively. They involve a dynamic of bias to get the job done. It's explained in my post above. It's just an inherent effect for you, and me, and everyone... whatever you - we - think about influences what we think next by way of priming related things.

I'm angry now, yes, but calming down. Anger is never worth it in the long run and just brings me down. As much as I can I try to step back from it, it's just harder when someone won't drop it. It's entirely possible, probable in fact, that in that state I have a demonised version of you in my head - a delusion - that is highly affected by confirmation bias... not much different from what can happen in a mafia game. It's what can happen in a situation of low information, such as a mafia game. I don't know you personally and for all I know you could be the kindest and most loving person in real life, but all I've got to work with here is what I see, and in anger that can be affected by paranoia and confirmation bias.

[Drich]

Ah... i can't believe I missed this! Really... I haven't been talking about this god stuff in so long that I miss doing it!

You're right.... sorry for the imprecise language.
Try again:

How do you search for something that doesn't likely exist?

Asked and answered.
below:

It depends on the Idea. It all starts with research. First isolate and identify those who claim to have contact or knowledge with what you are looking for and then explore methods of contact.

Should I follow every type of idea? Every claim of contact with any entity?

Just the ones that interest you.

Should I explore every method of contact proposed by everyone who ever makes a claim of contact with any kind of entity?!

I did.

Sounds like I could be wasting my time on an infinity of bogus claims.

there are 4 different avenues/classifications provided by the mainstream Christianity. Other religions do not allow for direct contact with their deity by someone like you.

There you start with a definition.
Dragons can be identified as reptiles, plants, or even women. Fairies could include gay men, birds, and even a lost race of humanity. Wizards could be an Adj the describes something wonderful, to a frequently asked questions tab on a software package, to the Greek use of the word that describes a pharmacologist.

Again, inorder to take an objective look at what may seem as the fantastic requires grounding both parties into a set of definations that outline what is the pair is looking for.

Now obviously when you say God we both can agree your idea of it does not exist as you've no doubt tried to sumon your idea of a deity and it has left you flat. Naturally you being the center of the universe as YOU know it assume when I say God we mean the same deity you have already dispelled.

My point here in this thread, is we are not talking about the same thing. Meaning all you've done you whole life to disprove God does not apply as your "tinkerbell" is not nor does it have anything to do with the ancient race of humanity I've discovered.

Wait, what?!
Ancient race of humanity?!
YOU've discovered?!Care to share?

No stupid.. I mean no moron...
I mean dummy, What I was explaining we have to be on the same page. Otherwise when you say fairy I could assume you meant The Pukwudgees
http://www.paradoxchronicle.com/?p=1846
While you maybe think of a wing sprite like tinkerbell

I thought holy books were written by people, not gods.

Try not to do that on your own. (think) you seem to gravitate to bias thought when left to your own devises. Rather than show any ability critical or analytical thought you seem to bail (as per your fairy example) and want to trivialize something you fully do not understand, rather than have taken the time to research.

The claims therein are claims by people.

Who have experienced God directly and have relayed how one is to do the same.
The test in what is said will never be a philosophical argument but a simply follow the instructions and see where it leads. If it puts you on god's door step then the directions are sound no matter who put pen to paper.

Could these people have found a way to exploit some psychological pathway to belief, without any requirement for a substantiation of that which is believed in?

You mean before the advent of psychology?
Why then has this specific method never been duplicated? Again, no other religion puts or promises a believer direct line to God. Always through some intermediary

Assume that what believers do and voila' you can shut your mind off to any unpleasant "thinking." perfect reasoning, huh?

Shut my mind off!?? Ah.... you're cute.

Please this whole post is an example of a closed/shut down mind. Look how you trivialize what you have spent no time seriously researching.
Your cute for trying to pretend you maintain objectivity while it is very obvious that you have been on 'cruise control, for a very very long time.

What happens if I'm right?

Squat, nothing, bubkiss.

Now what happens if I am right?

I am aware of how belief in the supernatural (and other beliefs) is just a psychological state.

apparently not. Otherwise you would understand your 'belief' in a psychological state is in of itself a psycological state and would reserve judgement.

I am aware of a few mechanisms to get there.
As such, I try to avoid falling prey to them. Thus far, I've been successful...

You, on the other hand, from my point of view, have fallen prey to one such mechanism. It's a common occurrence, nothing to be ashamed of.
As a believer, you automatically accept that the thing you believe in is true (duh!).

Again no. Sorry to ruin you little box of 'psychological' states, but I started out as an Atheist.

And fail to understand (maybe not the best word... realize?) how the minds of those who do not believe work. You seem to think we're simpletons who just "refuse to open our minds and let the truth shine in".... but nothing could be farther from what's going on.

Which again if you truly understood the depth of the 'psychological state' you are trying to fumble about and describe, you yourself would see the process is a doubled edged sword. In that dependence psychoanalysis as a method of keeping you 'free from God' binds you in the same way as it will not allow you to 'see' anything that you already do not believe.

Meaning you claim that because I first believe, and that everything I experience is forced through the filter of my belief. (despite me sharing i start out as a Buddhist then Atheist)

What I am saying the opposite is true, citing this same process but in reverse. Because you do not believe, you force EVERYTHING through the same filter of disbelief, not considering or allowing for any information that does not conform with your disbelief.

Which makes you a full on hypocrite for assuming that I fall prey to a process that you yourself has demonstrated you are a slave to already.

Confronted with the multitude of beliefs out there, how is anyone supposed to decide which one is representing the real divine, if any?

Youve asked this question 3 times. the answer is the same. Stop being lazy and Ask/Seek/ Knock for God.

How about we just wait it out?

you absolutely can, just be ready to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Just let the real MC please stand up... until he does... best not assume he wants me to think he's in the crowd.

What does the 'Real MC' look like? how then do you know if he is not standing?

If there is one MC and he's hiding, why should I go out and assume he is there?

What if 'hiding' means in plain sight? but because your too lazy to A/S/K you never see what is standing in front of you.

[Drich]

Haha, so now Drich is claiming to have discovered an ancient race of humanity?

No, Drich, what you've done is invented an ad hoc story to overcome the cognitive dissonance of your own incoherent beliefs.

Yay?

I have discovered it on line if none of you or your kudoo-ers knew of it.

[pocaracas]

Ah... i can't believe I missed this! Really... I haven't been talking about this god stuff in so long that I miss doing it!

You're right.... sorry for the imprecise language.
Try again:

How do you search for something that doesn't likely exist?

Asked and answered.
below:

It depends on the Idea. It all starts with research. First isolate and identify those who claim to have contact or knowledge with what you are looking for and then explore methods of contact.

Should I follow every type of idea? Every claim of contact with any entity?

Just the ones that interest you.

How would that work? I... may be interested in crazy stuff.... and never be interested by the actual real one claim...
What if I make up a few claims by myself? Should I then try to follow through? They would certainly interest me...

Should I explore every method of contact proposed by everyone who ever makes a claim of contact with any kind of entity?!

I did.

Wow....
Congratz!
I'm curious, How did it go with Amun and Ra?

Sounds like I could be wasting my time on an infinity of bogus claims.

there are 4 different avenues/classifications provided by the mainstream Christianity. Other religions do not allow for direct contact with their deity by someone like you.

Curious.... so... just because a religion doesn't allow for a person to directly contact their deity/ies, they're automatically thrown in the pyre?
That does not invalidate the divinities in the religion... just the claims of interaction with the divinities.

There you start with a definition.
Dragons can be identified as reptiles, plants, or even women. Fairies could include gay men, birds, and even a lost race of humanity. Wizards could be an Adj the describes something wonderful, to a frequently asked questions tab on a software package, to the Greek use of the word that describes a pharmacologist.

Again, inorder to take an objective look at what may seem as the fantastic requires grounding both parties into a set of definations that outline what is the pair is looking for.

Now obviously when you say God we both can agree your idea of it does not exist as you've no doubt tried to sumon your idea of a deity and it has left you flat. Naturally you being the center of the universe as YOU know it assume when I say God we mean the same deity you have already dispelled.

My point here in this thread, is we are not talking about the same thing. Meaning all you've done you whole life to disprove God does not apply as your "tinkerbell" is not nor does it have anything to do with the ancient race of humanity I've discovered.

Wait, what?!
Ancient race of humanity?!
YOU've discovered?!Care to share?

No stupid.. I mean no moron...
I mean dummy, What I was explaining we have to be on the same page. Otherwise when you say fairy I could assume you meant The Pukwudgees
http://www.paradoxchronicle.com/?p=1846
While you maybe think of a wing sprite like tinkerbell

Come now.... no need to call each other nasty names...

How cute, little people.... little mummies... I wonder if this is something like what I've seen happening with dinosaur fossil interpretation - the same species in different stages of development.... or just one single specimen of an individual with some rare growth disease/genetic problem?
I'm just asking... as I've only read that one page. You may have read more about these people and know more.

I thought holy books were written by people, not gods.

Try not to do that on your own. (think) you seem to gravitate to bias thought when left to your own devises. Rather than show any ability critical or analytical thought you seem to bail (as per your fairy example) and want to trivialize something you fully do not understand, rather than have taken the time to research.

I may understand more than I let on in writing...

The claims therein are claims by people.

Who have experienced God directly and have relayed how one is to do the same.
The test in what is said will never be a philosophical argument but a simply follow the instructions and see where it leads. If it puts you on god's door step then the directions are sound no matter who put pen to paper.

I know you mean well.
I know you had some revelation that made you believe.
I know you didn't get there by using the route in the instructions.
I know that the route in the instructions helped solidify your previously attained belief.

But I don't believe that those people experienced god directly.
More likely, they experienced something like yourself and wrote it down in their very own poetic style... perhaps with some ulterior motive?
The instructions would have come along through observation of how some people do get convinced, while many remain doing what they did all their lives...

Could these people have found a way to exploit some psychological pathway to belief, without any requirement for a substantiation of that which is believed in?

You mean before the advent of psychology?
Why then has this specific method never been duplicated? Again, no other religion puts or promises a believer direct line to God. Always through some intermediary

Before the science of psychology was consolidated, people did observe other people's behaviors, their thoughts, their beliefs.

I don't find it difficult to accept that some people in ancient times would have "studied" how people come to believe or think as they do.

Assume that what believers do and voila' you can shut your mind off to any unpleasant "thinking." perfect reasoning, huh?

Shut my mind off!?? Ah.... you're cute.

Please this whole post is an example of a closed/shut down mind. Look how you trivialize what you have spent no time seriously researching.
Your cute for trying to pretend you maintain objectivity while it is very obvious that you have been on 'cruise control, for a very very long time.

That is true.... I've been on cruise control for a while... no challenge, you see?

No god is forthcoming... nothing... but humans are... humans and their "beliefs". Various differing beliefs, so much so that they have led to war among humans, over who has he right belief... pitiful.
In spite of those wars, still.... no god is forthcoming.
If there is any god... it's like it doesn't care.
So why should I care to spend my survival machinery in coming up with ways how that non-caring god exists? At the end of the day, it comes down to the same. We both don't care about each other. I'm fine with that.

What happens if I'm right?

Squat, nothing, bubkiss.

Now what happens if I am right?

According to the tens and tens of generations of dead people since christianity surfaced, and how nothing happened to any of those, if you're right, nothing happens.... squat, bubkiss.

I am aware of how belief in the supernatural (and other beliefs) is just a psychological state.

apparently not. Otherwise you would understand your 'belief' in a psychological state is in of itself a psycological state and would reserve judgement.

I reserve judgement for the question of "god existing".... but "belief" is a psychological state.
I know the two things may be intertwined in your mind... it is a common occurrence among believers.

I am aware of a few mechanisms to get there.
As such, I try to avoid falling prey to them. Thus far, I've been successful...

You, on the other hand, from my point of view, have fallen prey to one such mechanism. It's a common occurrence, nothing to be ashamed of.
As a believer, you automatically accept that the thing you believe in is true (duh!).

Again no. Sorry to ruin you little box of 'psychological' states, but I started out as an Atheist.

Didn't I read somewhere that you started out Buddhist?

And fail to understand (maybe not the best word... realize?) how the minds of those who do not believe work. You seem to think we're simpletons who just "refuse to open our minds and let the truth shine in".... but nothing could be farther from what's going on.

Which again if you truly understood the depth of the 'psychological state' you are trying to fumble about and describe, you yourself would see the process is a doubled edged sword. In that dependence psychoanalysis as a method of keeping you 'free from God' binds you in the same way as it will not allow you to 'see' anything that you already do not believe.

Meaning you claim that because I first believe, and that everything I experience is forced through the filter of my belief. (despite me sharing i start out as a Buddhist then Atheist)

What I am saying the opposite is true, citing this same process but in reverse. Because you do not believe, you force EVERYTHING through the same filter of disbelief, not considering or allowing for any information that does not conform with your disbelief.

Which makes you a full on hypocrite for assuming that I fall prey to a process that you yourself has demonstrated you are a slave to already.

Belief is the psychological state, remember?

Any information that comes my way gets processed in accordance with the information itself.
Certainly, some pieces of information are easier to accept than others.
Some require thinking a bit on them... some are the result of some unknown physical phenomenon...
But, thus far, everything that's been presented to me can be interpreted in such a way that doesn't require a divine entity... even psychological states and events, like dreams.

Just because I can think up of some naturalistic interpretation, it doesn't mean I can provide the full explanation of how each particular event happened.... For example, nowadays, we are just not equipped to properly explain how thoughts arise in the brain... it certainly seems they are generated in there, but how exactly? who knows?...

Confronted with the multitude of beliefs out there, how is anyone supposed to decide which one is representing the real divine, if any?

Youve asked this question 3 times. the answer is the same. Stop being lazy and Ask/Seek/ Knock for God.

Only 3 times?
Should I ask, seek and knock for all of the divinities in which people believe?

How about we just wait it out?

you absolutely can, just be ready to deal with the consequences of your actions.

The consequences of not following what other people tell me about something they claim, but can't validate?
I'm sure any cosmic sized intelligence would appreciate my reasoning. If not, screw it.

Just let the real MC please stand up... until he does... best not assume he wants me to think he's in the crowd.

What does the 'Real MC' look like? how then do you know if he is not standing?

Other people, in other areas of the globe see a different MC from yours. Even those who earnestly search for it... perhaps even more fervently than you do.
They systematically arrive at the MC that's propagated by the people around them (Even you).
This screams "inadequate standing", at least.

If there is one MC and he's hiding, why should I go out and assume he is there?

What if 'hiding' means in plain sight? but because your too lazy to A/S/K you never see what is standing in front of you.

Well then, it seems that "plain sight" has some regional variability.... such that it causes wars.
I guess "plain sight" could be improved, don't you?

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems as if the only importance this a/s/k ing business has ever had is as an excuse for you to call people lazy...or whatever else strikes your fancy.  People have a/s/k ed and found nothing..and others have never done so and claim..like you, to have found something.

Why not just call the people lazy? Whats the point of complicating it or rationalizing your urge to be a dick?

[Drich]

You keep saying such things, but the only thing you have backing them is your own rather fallible interpretation of your life history.  A history, I might add, that you have no compulsion from changing at whim.  I've documented in the past how your stories change with each telling.  You're selling a bill of goods which is half imagination and reinterpreted memory.  So don't play the old 'humble me' card.  That type of dissonance springs from deep desires, and yours have precious little to do with God.

then please.. Share some of these "changes." Or by changes do you mean I go into greater detail where before I might have said something like "I don't want to 'boast' about what he said specifically, but it all came true so far."

You wield the word 'change' as if it were used by me to intentionally lie about a given situation. This is the lie alpo. You may not like the fact that you and your friends being one step behind a guy who is not up to your standards, but you are going to have to deal with it. I do not shoot from the cuff, and as I told you our in our first go round on this subject, I do indeed have my "god encounters" written out shortly after they happened, and I reference them when I share them. One of the reasons I posted them was so they could be referenced on this website when ever my telling of them were called into question.

As I pointed out in my "messenger/message" thread I intentionally held back the details of the 'prophetic' sharing as to not 'brag.' At that time their was no call or need to delve into specifics of the prophesy as that thread was about the encounter itself and not prophesy. The situation here changed so I shared a little more.

Like it or not there was a whole lot more shared that I could see trumping several other arguments. That is, were to just share. But, without point or purpose would be just bragging, and I am seriously not that type of person.

-Or perhaps you do not understand what it means to be humble before God and yet boldly exclaim his message, His truth. We have been tasked to do this very thing. Did Jesus follow your version of Humility when he challenged the religious leaders of His day? Was He your version of Humble when He called them Snakes, vipers, fools, Hypocrits? Was He 'humbled' when he chased out the money changers with a cord of whips? Did He show humility when he taught the religious leaders as a Child on the temple steps?

Way to miss the point.  The point is that you construct the bible half out of your own imagination.  You claim that you experienced a hell that consisted of privation from God, and then later learned that this 'is what the bible teaches'.  There are multiple schools of thought on what exactly the bible teaches about hell.

Actually no. there is many schools of thought on Hell, but the bible only teaches one thing.

 You simply chose the one which conformed to your prior belief.  Or would you like to provide chapter and verse to back up your interpretation.

Love to
Mt 25:41 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2thess 1:9 9 They will suffer the punishment of peternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Does this however mean their isn't suffering involved in said separation? Not according to my experience. I have been burned on a large scale and I can honestly say it would be better to be burned forever by fire than be made to endure Hell fire for a finite amount of time.

The word the Bible uses to describe a burning hell—Gehenna—comes from an actual burning place, the valley of Gehenna adjacent to Jerusalem on the south. Gehenna is an English transliteration of the Greek form of an Aramaic word, which is derived from the Hebrew phrase “the Valley of (the son[s] of) Hinnom.” In one of their greatest apostasies, the Jews (especially under kings Ahaz and Manasseh) passed their children through the fires in sacrifice to the god Molech in that very valley (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 32:35). Eventually, the Jews considered that location to be ritually unclean (2 Kings 23:10), and they defiled it all the more by casting the bodies of criminals into its smoldering heaps. In Jesus’ time this was a place of constant fire, but more so, it was a refuse heap, the last stop for all items judged by men to be worthless.

http://www.gotquestions.org/fire-and-brimstone.html

The word Gehenna is that used for hell in the New Testament.  If hell was not meant to be likened to this burning refuse heap, then why is it used as the name of hell?

Because it was the closest thing 'we' could identify with. If you go beyond a google check Hell is also described
"the pit, The Second Death, The Void, it is also described as a prison containing 'Caves of Darkness'/Where the fallen angels are kept until the final judgement. The Idea of Gehenna was a place where things/unwanted things or even bodies were burned/destroyed. This is the physical picture of the Spiritual destruction of Soul, mind and body is what the physical place was meant for us to process or understand what happened on a spiritual level.

And if half that experience is falsified in the retelling, then what exactly are you selling?  You're selling your own egotistical revisioning of your life.  It's nothing more than empty evangelism.  You pick things from your life, dress them up, and parrot it back to those listening.

How is offering you a direct line to God about me in any way? I have repeatedly said what has happened to me, what I need to experienced to establish and maintain my belief/Not yours. I also repeatedly have said God is willing to do this for anyone/Provide them with exactly what they need to establish and maintain faith. I am not asking for anything, I not selling a specific brand of Christianity nor do i even set a mandate/rules. I want nothing from any of you. I only offer an opportunity to receive the 'proof' you all pretend to want. Again If I am selling anything, then What's in it for me? what am I getting in exchange for giving you what YOU Claim To Want?

(besides all that you guys need to coordinate your attacks, One of you claims I'm selling stuff and another claims I don't care about whether or not you 'buy' what I'm selling. that I am serving a tour of duty here and have been placed here against my will.) this is why I take none of the criticism I get here seriously. You people are all over the board, like you are desperately and frantically are just saying anything and everything you can to just shut me up because you can not address me topically, so you attack my motives/me personally.

This from the person who embellishes his anecdotes.  That's fucking funny.  You aren't in a position to say what is and isn't truth with respect to God.  You've only got your warped interpretation of the bible.  

You have yet to demonstrate an embellishment. What really funny is the slanderous way you have attacked me based on little more than your 'good word.' Which is obviously heavily influenced by your personal feelings. Or again are their links to said embellishments that I am not aware of?

Now Jesus. Point being there is strong biblical precedent to the way I work, even if it flys in the face of conventional traditional 'Christian' stereotypes. Which if those conventional methods worked with you guys none of us would be here, would we?

The haughty never find fault in themselves.

Please provide a citation outlining a fault. SHOW ME SOMETHING! Other than a personal festering anger you hold towards me and or God. Anything other than a constant stream of empty vollies of baseless attacks.
You made notes of lies and all my character flaws... Show us the notes. Or are they mental notes subject to the same "half imagination and reinterpreted memory" you claim I am working from?

Har har.  You're claiming to have the path to salvation.  That's a boastful claim when you can't even prove the truth of the bible which you claim to rest your belief upon.  Care to tell us why we should believe the bible at all, much less your version of it?

There is no should.. There is a reason to want to. It's simple truth. The bible provides directions to God. IF infact you wish to find God the truth contain in the bible will lead you to Him and help identify Him once you get to where you are going.

I've pointed out errors in your exegesis in the past.

You've pointed to a misquote (I quoted from strong's and said it was from the bullingers) and I believe you corrected some incorrect information I cited from some other internet source concerning the use of Hebrew verbage. Everything else you 'correct' was subsequently recorrect and sent back to you, until you dropped the topic for whatever reason. I can indeed admit when I am wrong. Which happens most frequently when I draw from my memory rather than a fresh look up or my previous notes.

Truthfully since the two times you pointed to me being wrong, how many times do you think I do not double and tripple check what I say to you or know you will be reading?
The reason I am over confident in what I say and 'can't' admit when you think I am wrong, is because I am not. I do my due diligence and I do carefully manage what I say despite your personal assessment.

 Your Genesis day 3 being a prime example.  You are so blinded by your own confidence in your version that you completely ignored what was plainly written in the text.  It's like you're in a frenzy in which the only words you hear are your own.  Don't bother protesting if you're incapable of actually examining the evidence.  

Please this is what I am looking for. What of genesis day 3 did i say that is wrong?

I've done that in the past.  You get to a point where you're in a trance of some sort and keep repeating your previous answers, even after they've been shown to be wrong.  You are constitutionally incapable of accepting correction, so what would be the point in taking you on topically?

But again, when I am wrong I admit to it. Have done several times.

As if.  I've already explained why talking to you about what is in the bible is pointless.  But if you really want to go that route, show that, biblically, hell is not a place of corporeal suffering.

What are you talking about?!?! when did I say Is not a place of suffering?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

I remember falling into a black nothingness, as I traveled away from the light I felt myself being consumed by this Black almost like Hot tar. It was not fire but it invoked the same response as being burned. The panic and hysteria of being consumed lit every nerve ending as if it was being burned by the hottest flame. I could see nothing but heard a great yelling and many many groans of pain from every direction, But only bearly because of my own groans, and screams. (Through all of that I had a sense that these laments were not all human.) All the while falling and being in a great state of panic and pain. Fire, panic and pain are not even strong enough words to describe the intensity of the experience.

Looks like your 'understanding about what I teach concerning hell' is yet Another example of 'Someone selling a bill of goods which is half imagination and reinterpreted memory, which SHE has no problem changing at a whim' to fit a personal festering anger towards me and my work here in the name of God..

But that is ok, when you do it huh? Or is this where you get to admit where you are wrong?

IDK I seem to be swabbing the deck with the one making those charges.

Nope, no ego there.  How exactly are you swabbing the deck except in your own fevered imagination?

The Claim was made by the OP that I fall into her category of a bias similar to your own assessment. I do not. She outlined parameters that fosters her version of bias, a bias that I nor my situation qualify. Then she defaults to a ya-huh/nut-huh argument in attempt to shoe horn me into her own bias. (that bias being all Christian belief follows her outlined pattern) Once her bias has been established/by me demonstrating I do not fit her pattern yet retain belief in God, then she can be disqualified for identifying it in others, citing her own bias. Hence swabbing the deck/mopping the floor with her. My identification of swabbing the deck was not a brag, but a warning not to go down that fault chain of logic for the same reason she failed. It was not meant as a look what I did, but more like a dog barking/don't go there.

Patiently waiting for you to demonstrate that what is written of in the bible is truth.  Until you do, the only backing you have for the truth of A/S/K is your own revisionist history.  By the way, why do you abbreviate it as A/S/K when the order of events in the story is SEEK, then KNOCK, then ASK?

Again proof is not mine to Give. It comes in the way of the Holy Spirit/Being in direct contact with the Holy Spirit.
What better 'proof' of God is there than being placed before God?

luke 11:
9 So I tell you, continue to ask, and God will give to you. Continue to search, and you will find. Continue to knock, and the door will open for you. 10 Yes, whoever continues to ask will receive. Whoever continues to look will find. And whoever continues to knock will have the door opened for them.

The first is ASK
Second is SEEK
Lastly we are told to KNOCK
A-S-K

Matter of fact, Jesus doesn't even mention 'knocking' in the parable.  Only that by being a pest you will get what you have sought.  

which is what He identified as Knocking as the explaination of the parable is still apart of the contextual telling of parable.

5 Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6 a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7 And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity[a] he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

Luke 11:5-13

Check your martyr card at the door.  The path you are walking down is filled with self-deceit.  There's good reason you should be opposed.  You know only the Siren's song.  Your path is not what you are advertising here.  Your 'path', such as it is, exists only in your imagination.  I debate with you also to show others your flaws, of which you are wholly ignorant.

I am completely aware of my flaws, as I have been given many thorns in the flesh as reminders of them. However. What you have Identified are not flaws. They are obsticals for you to over come. Obsticals you have failed to overcome contextually/topically (as you fail to even represent my position correctly in your strawman attempt to label me and my various positions) and have lazily confronted me with what you don't like about me personally in an effort to remove what you have failed to topically address.

You want to address me topically I will go as long as your willing to respond.

[Drich]

Drich thinks they are the only one who would suffer pushback from family and friends if they start having doubts. What a load of "poor me" garbage. You think that would be bad Drich? Try expressing doubt in Iran or Saudi Arabia like Atlas. And even if you don't a have any doubts Drich, in many places in that part of the world merely talking to a perceived enemy can get you murdered. 

We really don't want to hear it Drich, I have been at this 15 years and cannot tell you the countless stories of especially teens at home, who live in fear of being thrown on the streets. How many get shouted at and some sent to "therapy" because of "concerned" family. And I am sure the transgendered here can tell you the harassment and fear they have to go through.

You aren't getting anything but a "bullshit" from us. Nobody here wants you dead, nobody is going to have you arrested for merely saying things we think are crazy. And you have been on this board for YEARS, so your "poor me" act isn't going to wash here.

WE do want you going down that path, no, not a path to depression, or addiction, or lawlessness, just REASON. And yes, some family and friends wont understand at first, but if you play your cards with them right and don't start fights over it, the ones who really love you do adjust.

My younger sister came out 4 years ago and for a while our biological family flipped out, but have since calmed down and simply don't discuss it but talk about other things.

Our problem has never been with every theist of every religion in the world, but the idea of it itself, and the idea that old mythology is still relevant in our modern world. What screws up human logic, isn't that religious people cant have empathy, but they base their logic on old antiquated social norm and refuse to adapt to changing times.

Yes, leaving any religion has social consequences especially within a right wing family in a right wing society, and all religions have their conservative pockets up to entire nations. Babies are NOT born with a religion, the adults pass it down to them. Most humans simply adapt the the religions of the societies they are born into. 

There is no cosmic sky dictator that will reward you or punish you with the revenge of eternal torture. You CAN live a very happy life, yes you would still have ups and downs, and yes, even some family and friends might leave you. But living in a mental prison is what we refused to do. It was tough for many of us, I was relatively lucky myself, because my mom merely thought it was a phase. But I have lost friends and even my biological older brother because of their attitudes to me. I have been shouted at on a couple of occasions and even had a guy try to fire me.

Atheist families have had their kids kicked out of school, I knew a guy who got kicked out of his apartment. But in the Middle East in many places, they would murder BOTH you and I for even a peep.

We don't want you dead, or even depressed. All we have been trying to do is pull your head out of that book and think for yourself for once. But your pity party act wont work here and you should know that by now.

WFT was that about?
How does it have anything to do with what I said or what alpo said?

[Drich]

How about him telling me "the girl your in love with.. You will have one chance with her, and you will pass it up, and what's more you will know this is your only chance and you will pass it up anyway." A year later this very thing happened. She broke up with her BF and approached me, but I was exhausted from work, and she wanted to go out on a Sunday night. I told her I was tired, but I was going to go. She said we can just go out friday. Then I told her about this very 'angel experience' and what he said, and was worried this was my 'one chance.' She said don't worry about it go and get some rest. Come Friday she had gotten back together with that guy (she married)
He also told me I would have a second chance latter but that it would not count as i would be dating my future wife at that point.
A year after that she came to me after my first date with me wife and told me she was done with him again, and this time I got to tell her no.

You do know what a self fulfilling prophesy is, do you not?

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

great definition, now apply it to the two example i gave.

Or are you just giving out random definitions and hopping that the bias you have will force me to see what you do.

[Drich]

You do know what a self fulfilling prophesy is, do you not?

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come true. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

yup, I can't *possibly* imagine why a girl would decide against going out with you after you'd told her you feared it was your "one chance"... no possible natural explanation for that is there?

Anyway, my reason for not believing in God, is because I was never brought up to believe such things, and therefore the idea of claiming the contents of a particular extremely boring and ridiculous book are divine and True just seemed preposterous. Since then I have done copious amounts of reading and research, and determined that I am simply not capable (i.e. gullible enough) to "open my mind and let Him in". I have no need to believe. It serves no purpose for me. Any apologetic argument is so clearly baseless, and it just became amusing to me to see the contortions employed by religious folks to try and make things fit.

kinda picking and choosing to make your defination fit huh?

What about all the other things that was said and did happen that do not qualify as self fullfilling?