Rejecting 'Atheism', Beyond Labels: Rethinking How We Define Non-Belief: And Why I Choose 'None'

Factfinder

@ZeusAres42

Frankly I never used the term that much at all in real life. When we go to the market we do not recognize a beautiful woman atheist. We just notice a woman. Theist for that matter as well. The only place I've used either term on a consistent basis was on the internet, debate sites specifically. It is a simple way of quick identification but like you said, it like all labels gets muddled. In the end, I agree, don't need that label. To be honest though, I'm not sure I'd correct someone repeatedly during a debate if the term itself started becoming the issue instead of the original topic of debate.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ; Every human being possesses the free will to believe whatever they desire to believe...you have every right to deny a Creator as I have every right to acknowledge Him. Peace.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It's not that simple ricky. I would love to believe as I once did. I mean just believe in god, look at creation and know god did it. That a benevolent super being cares enough to not only offer eternal life, but eternal bliss and contentment as well? Yeah, who wouldn't wish that? Believing something just happens, it's not a choice. And if it doesn't happen, it doesn't. You yourself didn't say you were convinced their had to be a creator, you just believed it as you observed life around you. It wasn't a conscious decision on your part. At least you don't tell it that way. You tell it as though you just believed and always have. Well that's fine but the reality is there are people who never have, not by choice, they just don't believe. There are those that did believe but as they lived life their faith left. That too isn't a choice, it just happens one realizes they do not believe as they once did. And there are those who didn't believe but now do, all circumstances have one fact in common, their belief or unbelief arises by happenstance, not choice.  

MayCaesar

Honestly, I never even think about these things outside of this website (which, for whatever reason, is constantly swarmed by religious weirdos). Religion is just an incredibly boring topic for me. I would rather talk about technology, or science, or philosophy, or economics. This stuff, people should grow out of about the same time they grow out of believing in Santa Claus, and there is not much to say about it.

"Atheist", "theist", "agnostic"... Who cares? We are talking about an ancient fantasy book. How about we use similar terms to characterize people's opinion of Sauron, or Qui-Gon Jinn?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Amen.

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

If you are suggesting that I myself am claiming to deny the existence of a deity then please can you highlight exactly where I said that as I can't find myself having written that anywhere. This thread states very clearly what it is and it has nothing to do with claims about the denial of the existence of any god or deity. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ; You are free to believe whatever you desire...that is YOUR right...I have no say-so in that matter...

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ; You are free to believe whatever you desire...that is YOUR right...I have no say-so in that matter...

@RickeyHoltsclaw

That's not what this thread is about. Why should there be a label for people who do not accept religious faiths? What's the point? I thought maybe if you understood that faith doesn't come by choice but rather more like a moment of epiphany, it comes over you one way or another. Once you understand that I would think it would reduce the need to label people based on what they don't believe. When we label non belief we cast unnecessary aspersions. I believe ZeusAres42 was making this point with this thread. Nothing to do about anyone's specific beliefs or not believing per say.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;

Not sure the relevance of your positioning, contention, your rebuttal or that of Zeus'...as I said, you are free to believe (or NOT believe) anything you choose...if you don't believe that remains a "choice" of the will...rejecting something or accepting something is a "choice"....irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the decision. Ignoring something remains a "choice" to ignore...

just_sayin

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;

Not sure the relevance of your positioning, contention, your rebuttal or that of Zeus'...as I said, you are free to believe (or NOT believe) anything you choose...if you don't believe that remains a "choice" of the will...rejecting something or accepting something is a "choice"....irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the decision. Ignoring something remains a "choice" to ignore...

My point is I agree with Zeus. 'Atheist' is an unnecessary term. And no, rejection or acceptance is not a 'choice'. I didn't choose to be an apostate. It was the result of the doubts I kept having. I didn't seek them out, they just arose. Same with you, faith just arose within you, you didn't choose it. You say as much when you give your testimonial. You basically said when you were little you just knew when you saw things there must be a creator. Belief came over you, you did not instigate it. 

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

Well, luckily "atheism" just means lack of belief in god. It does not mean believing anything positively, such as that "Universe came from nothing" or "at some point the Universe made up 0 space".

I also suggest that you examine the lexical structure of your last sentence. Atheism is lack of a particular belief. Your sentence parses as "I do not have enough faith to not have faith".

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;

Not sure the relevance of your positioning, contention, your rebuttal or that of Zeus'...as I said, you are free to believe (or NOT believe) anything you choose...if you don't believe that remains a "choice" of the will...rejecting something or accepting something is a "choice"....irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the decision. Ignoring something remains a "choice" to ignore...

My point is I agree with Zeus. 'Atheist' is an unnecessary term. And no, rejection or acceptance is not a 'choice'. I didn't choose to be an apostate. It was the result of the doubts I kept having. I didn't seek them out, they just arose. Same with you, faith just arose within you, you didn't choose it. You say as much when you give your testimonial. You basically said when you were little you just knew when you saw things there must be a creator. Belief came over you, you did not instigate it. 

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; 

1) There are no atheists...the term is used by the one who obfuscates and denies the volume of evidence before them relevant to the reality of an omnipotent Creator.

2) I disagree...it is by volition that one accepts or rejects or ignores the evidence for our omnipotent Creator.

3) Doubting is a verb...it is actively involved in volitional decision making. It is a rejection or refusal to accept the supernatural evidence relevant to the existence of our omnipotent Creator that causes one to doubt; therefore, volition is certainly relevant.

4) I did "choose" to believe and faith arose as a gift from my volitional decision to believe what I had read in the Canon of Scripture about Jesus.

5) When I was a young child, it was very apparent to me, undeniable, that the night sky and my parents and my sister were the products of creation...they were made and planned and had purpose...therefore, someone did it.

6) I "believed" in response to what I observed and read and my belief was accounted as righteousness with the Father who provided me faith through His Holy Spirit.

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It is also a choice to neither reject or accept something. To neither affirm a positive or a negative. To neither confirm or deny, to remain neutral, with old judgement, be indifferent, etc. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 @Factfinder ; These are an act of the will; therefore, volition is relevant, free will is extant, you will be judged by your "choices" made within the Realm of Time.

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 @Factfinder ; These are an act of the will; therefore, volition is relevant, free will is extant, you will be judged by your "choices" made within the Realm of Time.

By referencing fantastic concepts from the Bible, you make it sound very profound - but in practice all that you are saying is "choices have consequences". Well, thanks for telling us, captain! How could we have known that without you?

What those consequences are, however, is less obvious than you claim it is. Imagine this: the Bible is a product by the God of Logic who wants to test his creations. Will they be duped by an old fantasy story? Oops looks like many of them were... Oh well, the design was flawed, will do better next time. These duped ones though? To the discard pile with them.

Have you considered this possibility? Or did you just accept the story based on one book and a few rural preachers and closed your mind for any alternative?

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 @Factfinder ; These are an act of the will; therefore, volition is relevant, free will is extant, you will be judged by your "choices" made within the Realm of Time.

By referencing fantastic concepts from the Bible, you make it sound very profound - but in practice all that you are saying is "choices have consequences". Well, thanks for telling us, captain! How could we have known that without you?

What those consequences are, however, is less obvious than you claim it is. Imagine this: the Bible is a product by the God of Logic who wants to test his creations. Will they be duped by an old fantasy story? Oops looks like many of them were... Oh well, the design was flawed, will do better next time. These duped ones though? To the discard pile with them.

Have you considered this possibility? Or did you just accept the story based on one book and a few rural preachers and closed your mind for any alternative?

@MayCaesar ; @ZeusAres42 ; @Factfinder

1) You intuitively know that your decisions have consequences...our Creator placed that discernment within you for your protection and His eschatological purposes going forward.

2) Nothing is flawed but everything is foreordained with a specific purpose and eschatological plan that will come to a foreordained conclusion for cause. The variable in that plan is the free will of the creatures through whom Elohim works and progresses forward through Time His divine will proceeding forward to that foreordained conclusion; in other words, we are free moral agents to choose whom and how we will serve in the temporary Realm of Time; this, as Elohim via His omnipotence works through and around our individual choices, discernment, free will, to accomplish His perfect will; that is, the defeat of Satan's works through the Messiah (1 John 3:8b); the restoration of order-righteousness-peace to His Kingdom; maintenance of volitional love with His cherished angelic creation that remained faithful to Him during the Great Kingdom War.

3) What "I DID" was to sit quietly and read the Canon of Scripture, beginning with the New Testament, with a heart that is willing to receive and believe...the Holy Spirit did the rest...I simply said "yes."

MayCaesar

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I am sorry, but you did not address anything I said in my comment. Please reply to the comment's content.

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

I am sorry, but you did not address anything I said in my comment. Please reply to the comment's content.

@MayCaesar ;  I did reply to your comment...no need to apologize.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;

Not sure the relevance of your positioning, contention, your rebuttal or that of Zeus'...as I said, you are free to believe (or NOT believe) anything you choose...if you don't believe that remains a "choice" of the will...rejecting something or accepting something is a "choice"....irrespective of the positivity or negativity of the decision. Ignoring something remains a "choice" to ignore...

My point is I agree with Zeus. 'Atheist' is an unnecessary term. And no, rejection or acceptance is not a 'choice'. I didn't choose to be an apostate. It was the result of the doubts I kept having. I didn't seek them out, they just arose. Same with you, faith just arose within you, you didn't choose it. You say as much when you give your testimonial. You basically said when you were little you just knew when you saw things there must be a creator. Belief came over you, you did not instigate it. 

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; 

1) There are no atheists...the term is used by the one who obfuscates and denies the volume of evidence before them relevant to the reality of an omnipotent Creator.

2) I disagree...it is by volition that one accepts or rejects or ignores the evidence for our omnipotent Creator.

3) Doubting is a verb...it is actively involved in volitional decision making. It is a rejection or refusal to accept the supernatural evidence relevant to the existence of our omnipotent Creator that causes one to doubt; therefore, volition is certainly relevant.

4) I did "choose" to believe and faith arose as a gift from my volitional decision to believe what I had read in the Canon of Scripture about Jesus.

5) When I was a young child, it was very apparent to me, undeniable, that the night sky and my parents and my sister were the products of creation...they were made and planned and had purpose...therefore, someone did it.

6) I "believed" in response to what I observed and read and my belief was accounted as righteousness with the Father who provided me faith through His Holy Spirit.

1. You yourself use the term and usually in a derogatory way. In life, I am the one who doesn't use the term. Only here. Which creator does this 'volume' of evidence point to?

2. Perhaps my choice of words were off. My failure to articulate properly. It's not anyone's fault they do not see evidence of a creator in the natural. Especially any specific creator.

3. "Doubting" is an adjective and requires no act of volition. 'Doubt' and 'faith' are both nouns. Neither require an act of volition but can be used as a basis to accept or reject. Hence my prior articulation admission. 

4. Fine. But when I read your testimony you specifically mentioned that before you read the bible, as a young boy you just believed in a creator when you observed nature. Now you may have heard adults talking and that gave you a fledgling of some idea what a creator was, but the instant belief hit you, you didn't have anymore of a 'conscious' decision based on scriptures then you would've if you became infatuated with someone at that very instant across the street. It just over comes a person or it don't.

5. The exact point when you believed, when was that? What you described here is what I'm talking about. Your young mind is processing things you've heard with things you see, but at what juncture does faith have hold? I submit that faith occurred before you realized it. What you're talking about is when your epiphany that you suddenly realized you have overwhelming faith. Then you naturally turned to the source in your life you believed was about this creator, the bible. Your action to read and accept the bible is your choice, but your faith was already there before you read the first chapter. I'll take one step further, your faith that overtook you codifies the scriptures in your mind; instead of the verses reinforcing faith. 

6. So did I. Like I said, I did not want to become an apostate. But once doubt entered I had only two paths to choose from, continue to go thru mental gymnastics trying to convince myself I still believed, or to stop deluding myself and just admit to myself I no longer had the faith it takes to believe. I chose the latter. This is important for you to understand; I did not choose to stop believing, my choice was to stop pretending I still did.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder @ZeusAres42

You said: 1. You yourself use the term and usually in a derogatory way. In life, I am the one who doesn't use the term. Only here. Which creator does this 'volume' of evidence point to?

Response: Our Creator is Yeshua - Jesus Christ.

You said: 2. Perhaps my choice of words were off. My failure to articulate properly. It's not anyone's fault they do not see evidence of a creator in the natural. Especially any specific creator.

Response: Unless one is cognitively impaired, demonically persuaded, they know a Creator exists and they are "without excuse." Romans 1   That's not my opinion that's what the Holy Spirit has said.

You said: 3. "Doubting" is an adjective and requires no act of volition. 'Doubt' and 'faith' are both nouns. Neither require an act of volition but can be used as a basis to accept or reject. Hence my prior articulation admission.

Response: I said doubting is a verb:

doubted; doubting; doubts

Synonyms of doubt

transitive verb  as per--Merriam Webster

-- Faith that saves the soul from Hell is a noun which is synonymous with belief or trust. 

-- Faith that produces fruits of good works subsequent salvation is a verb.

Doubting is a verb that culminates in rejection of truth concerning our Creator and you will be held culpable for this act of defiance and rejection...you are "without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

You said: 4. Fine. But when I read your testimony you specifically mentioned that before you read the bible, as a young boy you just believed in a creator when you observed nature. Now you may have heard adults talking and that gave you a fledgling of some idea what a creator was, but the instant belief hit you, you didn't have anymore of a 'conscious' decision based on scriptures then you would've if you became infatuated with someone at that very instant across the street. It just over comes a person or it don't.

Response: Yes, as a child it was apparent to me that what I observed in the night sky was created; hence, a Creator.

Belief in a Creator is basically logic and commonsense...anyone who denies our Creator deceives themselves with intent.

You said: 5. The exact point when you believed, when was that? What you described here is what I'm talking about. Your young mind is processing things you've heard with things you see, but at what juncture does faith have hold? I submit that faith occurred before you realized it. What you're talking about is when your epiphany that you suddenly realized you have overwhelming faith. Then you naturally turned to the source in your life you believed was about this creator, the bible. Your action to read and accept the bible is your choice, but your faith was already there before you read the first chapter. I'll take one step further, your faith that overtook you codifies the scriptures in your mind; instead of the verses reinforcing faith.

Response: I've "believed" that a Creator existed from my earliest childhood memories. My young mind perceived the unfathomable night sky, the supernatural world around me and came to a logical conclusion, even in my immaturity, that these things required a "Maker."

My transition from simple belief into faith manifest during my first thorough read of the Scriptures...the Scriptures are the source of life for humanity as they introduce our Creator and His eschatological purposes for this life constrained by Time and physics.

Yes, I "chose" to engage the Scriptures in search of answers. I believed what I read and I was rewarded with faith and eternal life in Jesus. The Scriptures are the source of my faith as they introduced me to my Messiah who died for me that I could live eternally in Him.

You said: 6. So did I. Like I said, I did not want to become an apostate. But once doubt entered I had only two paths to choose from, continue to go thru mental gymnastics trying to convince myself I still believed, or to stop deluding myself and just admit to myself I no longer had the faith it takes to believe. I chose the latter. This is important for you to understand; I did not choose to stop believing, my choice was to stop pretending I still did.

Response: Obviously, you never truly wanted to believe but entertained the possibility...yet you knew and know that a Creator exists but His righteousness and holiness are an impedance to your love of the flesh and your desires to satiate that flesh with conduct that is contrary to our Holy Creator; therefore, you exist in pity and self-righteousness and a facade of intellectualism and arrogance thinking yourself too "smart" to believe in a "sky daddy"...there are billions just like you...who will die in Hell in stubbornness and "that's just the way it is."  

 

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ;  I did reply to your comment...no need to apologize.

I made a very specific point about one's inability to easily see the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes to alleged supernatural beings about which one knows very little. Please respond to that point.

I am not going to give you the benefit of doubt any more. I will expect you to reply to me when you are replying to me. I will be haunting you in your nightmares if you fail to do so.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

doubt·ing

/ˈdoudiNG/

adjective

1. expressing or feeling uncertainty or lack of conviction; skeptical.
   
   In this case it's a adjective. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ;  I did reply to your comment...no need to apologize.

I made a very specific point about one's inability to easily see the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes to alleged supernatural beings about which one knows very little. Please respond to that point.

I am not going to give you the benefit of doubt any more. I will expect you to reply to me when you are replying to me. I will be haunting you in your nightmares if you fail to do so.

@MayCaesar ; @Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42

1) Everyone who possesses sufficient cognitive acuity to know good from evil, right from wrong, knows they're a sinner and they're guilty before our sovereign Creator; thus, an innate awareness that their sin comes with consequences and this divine gift of discernment continues until one sins to a point where their conscience becomes seared and unresponsive; this, the resultant of "diminishing returns" concerning human nature and its insatiable appetites as per the Adamic sin-nature (Romans 5:12). 

We are all aware of our sin, our unrighteousness, those possessing a healthy conscience and we're all aware that there is a Creator who possesses divine sovereignty over our lives as He has demonstrated this sovereignty by what He has made and placed before us (Romans 1:18-32). This includes even the most stubborn and ardent atheist. 

2) You have no authority over me because the god you serve (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 8:44) has always been subservient to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit...you are but a breath, a mist, a vapor, that is fading away in nihilism and will ultimately culminate in wastefulness and regret in your atheism. You have chosen unwisely. 

 

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is how any debate you have deteriorates ricky. You can not prove anything is evidence of your god when we know Zeus could of done it. All the evidence points to him. See how silly that is ricky? You get offended if I say that, but you'd give me a fist pump if I'd said Jesus did it. When the evidence doesn't point to any particular god at all. This is the active part of your faith. It doesn't explain your faith however.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder

doubt

1 of 2

verb

ˈdau̇t 

doubted; doubting; doubts

Synonyms of doubt

transitive verb

1

: to call into question the truth of : to be uncertain or in doubt about

He doubts everyone's word.

2

a

: to lack confidence in : distrust

… find myself doubting him even when I know that he is honest …—

H. L. Mencken

b

: to consider unlikely

I doubt if I can go.

3

archaic

a

: fear

… I doubt I have been beguiled!—

Sir Walter Scott

b

: suspect

intransitive verb

: to be uncertain

doubtable

ˈdau̇-tə-bəl 

adjective

doubter noun

doubtingly

ˈdau̇-tiŋ-lē 

adverb

doubt

2 of 2

noun

plural doubts

1

a

: a lack of confidence : distrust

has doubts about his abilities

b

: an inclination not to believe or accept

a claim met with doubt

2

a

: uncertainty of belief or opinion that often interferes with decision-making

b

: a deliberate suspension of judgment

3

: a state of affairs giving rise to uncertainty, hesitation, or suspense

The outcome is still in doubt.

It appears that doubt can be either a verb or a noun depending upon context...

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Your point? I told you how I'm using it. Can you debate the content instead of picking over definitions?

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; @Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42

1) Everyone who possesses sufficient cognitive acuity to know good from evil, right from wrong, knows they're a sinner and they're guilty before our sovereign Creator; thus, an innate awareness that their sin comes with consequences and this divine gift of discernment continues until one sins to a point where their conscience becomes seared and unresponsive; this, the resultant of "diminishing returns" concerning human nature and its insatiable appetites as per the Adamic sin-nature (Romans 5:12). 

We are all aware of our sin, our unrighteousness, those possessing a healthy conscience and we're all aware that there is a Creator who possesses divine sovereignty over our lives as He has demonstrated this sovereignty by what He has made and placed before us (Romans 1:18-32). This includes even the most stubborn and ardent atheist. 

2) You have no authority over me because the god you serve (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 8:44) has always been subservient to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit...you are but a breath, a mist, a vapor, that is fading away in nihilism and will ultimately culminate in wastefulness and regret in your atheism. You have chosen unwisely. 

You just keep saying things like, "It is intuitive", "It is obvious", "You just have to believe". Yet you provide absolutely zero logical arguments in favor of it being true.

Suppose it is not so intuitive and obvious to me, and suppose I am not prone to believing every charlatan that wants to sell me something. What now? Do you have any logical arguments, of the kind that I make every time I write a piece of software that has to be fast, accurate and bug-free? Or is it just endless new age stuff, like "Let go of your self. Embrace the void"?

And your preaching does not hit the mark. It just makes you sound like a mindless cultist. I would like to see actual arguments, not this dribble.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Everyone who possesses sufficient cognitive acuity to know good from evil, right from wrong, knows they're a sinner and they're guilty before our sovereign Creator; 

Proof or empirical evidence that your god specifically created? Bible verses are not either proof, or evidence...go

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar

1) You are proof that what I am alleging is truth...you know intuitively what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable due your conscience lest that conscience is seared and no longer able to discern, this void being defined as a form of psychopathy. LIFE proves to you the communicable divine attributes you possess as you are created in the spiritual image of Elohim and these communicable attributes were given you for His eschatological purposes going forward; namely, to thwart societal implosion due unrestrained narcissism and that your judgment, in that Day, manifest with due process; in other words, you "intuitively" know that our Creator exists and that He possesses sovereignty over your life; this, whether or not you acknowledge Him...you are "without excuse."

2) Another divine communicable attribute given you at creation on Day-6 and inclusive in your genome is "discernment."...If you seek truth in life and walk in wisdom, charlatans will be obvious...if you study the Scriptures and honor Jesus by faith, you will possess the Holy Spirit who is your Wisdom and Discernment...He will make your path straight and your guide you through the obstacles of life. 

3) My "preaching" offends you because you possess a most arrogant and demeaning and destructive demon...who is irritated by my presence here.

 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Prove that my God did NOT create by providing another form of plausible explanation for Nature, the Genesis of same? Change my mind.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ;  I did reply to your comment...no need to apologize.

I made a very specific point about one's inability to easily see the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes to alleged supernatural beings about which one knows very little. Please respond to that point.

I am not going to give you the benefit of doubt any more. I will expect you to reply to me when you are replying to me. I will be haunting you in your nightmares if you fail to do so.

He does that a lot. Tried to be civil with him. Can't pin him down to the exact moment he 'believed' as faith came upon me like love. As much as I would choose sex, or maybe some idea of love, the real thing hit without me ever choosing it. But he resorts back to the bible and  wants to argue definitions instead. 

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

It is also a choice to neither reject or accept something. To neither affirm a positive or a negative. To neither confirm or deny, to remain neutral, with old judgement, be indifferent, etc. 

I think I'm lacking the vocabulary to articulate my point to ricky. Off topic I know, but I don't think he got what you were saying in the op. Atheism is an unnecessary term,(on topic) and also we don't actively choose not to believe, we just can't. Maybe one day we could, who knows. It's like infatuation, overwhelms one in an instant. Does that make sense to you? (off topic part)

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; Everyone possess the ability to believe in what they know to be truth, our Creator exists...you simply "choose" to deny; this, for narcissistic reasons, but one thing is for sure...your motive is known by our Creator and will be judged accordingly and each of you will be "without excuse."

If it were possible that you could NOT believe...you would not be culpable but you ARE culpable because you possess the ability to believe but you refuse and obfuscate.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Prove that my God did NOT create by providing another form of plausible explanation for Nature, the Genesis of same? Change my mind.

Prove it did. Bible doesn't count. I have no desire to change your mind. I'm just 'non'.

jack

ZeusAres42 said:

Rejecting 'Atheism', Beyond Labels: Rethinking How We Define Non-Belief: And Why

Hello z:

Atheism is a belief in nothing.  It CAN'T be rejected because it isn't anything. Furthermore, I dunno how to rethink nothing.  It boggles my mind.  No matter how hard I try, I cannot think or rethink nothing, cause nothing is nothing.  Why is nothing nothing?  Cause there ain't anything in it.

You're welcome.

excon

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw


Conintuing our discussion in the other thread I will now post here as it is still relevant and you are posting here a lot recently. I will start here:

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

So, just to get this straight. I don't want to miss characterise your position. You do actually see your belief in god based on evidence and just faith alone? And that evidence is scripture?

RickeyHoltsclaw said: 

It is evidence extant in Nature that demands an omnipotent Creator that has under girded my belief in Him from my earliest childhood memories. It is the Scriptures that provided continuity and understanding relevant to my Creator and it is the life of Jesus (as expounded upon in the Scriptures) who confirmed to me that what I understood from evidence in Nature culminates in the person of Messiah Jesus, the hypostatic union of Elohim and Flesh; in whom, I placed my "faith" as my Lord and Savior believing that Jesus is Creator, Warrior, Messiah, Judge; this, subsequent my first thorough read of what the Holy Spirit has provided in the Canon. It is my belief that actuated saving faith that initiated New Covenant relationship with the Father; this, by faith-believing in my heart that Jesus is Messiah who died for me (John 3) and this belief-faith resulted in the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit who is my anointing as Teacher, Counselor, Intercessor, Wisdom, Peace, Comforter (Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 John 2:27). 

This statement seems to present a deepity. I'm not entirely sure if you are being completely honest with us, or even with yourself, when you say your beliefs about God are based on evidence. If your belief truly rests on evidence, then why is there a need for faith? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, 'I don’t need reason, logic, or evidence to believe in God; faith alone suffices'?

Furthermore, how do you verify the historical accuracy of scriptural events and teachings? What methods can be employed to test these against other historical documents or evidence, beyond merely observing the sun and moon and attributing their existence to God? What substantial evidence exists? How can we test to determine if these scriptures are authentic, without merely relying on intuition, attributing mysteries of nature to divine action, etc.? How can these methods be replicated or verified by others who seek to understand the validity of its claims?

Lastly, considering your belief in an omnipotent Creator is based on observations of nature and further reinforced by Scripture, how do you distinguish between what might simply be subjective personal interpretations of these observations and what is objectively applicable evidence?

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; Everyone possess the ability to believe in what they know to be truth, our Creator exists...at you could NOT believe...you 

That is the damming flaw of your argument. If we knew it to be true, we would know; and faith becomes irrelevant. We do not know what you assert to be true. But if you know, why the need for faith? 

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

If I may I would now like to genuinly explore how you have come about to know what you claim to know about God and about science here for that matter. Let's start here:

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When you mention the universe coming from 'nothing,' how do you define 'nothing' in this context? And how does this concept compare to the explanations provided by contemporary physics or cosmology regarding the origins of the universe?

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

You’ve mentioned the astronomical improbabilities of the fundamental forces in our universe. How do you determine the probabilities that these constants could arise in a manner that allows for the existence of the universe and life? And have you ever explored alternative scientific explanations that account for these constants without invoking a mind?

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

How do you reconcile the appearance of design with the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection? What makes the scientific explanations for the origin of life less plausible to you than the idea of a designer?

In addition to the above I would also like to aske the following:

• Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'faith' in the context given regarding not having enough faith to be an Atheist? And how does this 'faith' compare to the confidence or trust that individuals place in scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life?
• Also, when it comes to scientific attempts to understand the universe's origins and the emergence of life, how do you evaluate the evidence and theories proposed by scientists? What criteria do you use to assess the validity and reliability of scientific explanations?
  
• Lastly, have you ever considered how scientists and those who may not believe in a deity approach the questions of the universe’s origins and the complexity of life? What are your thoughts on the scientific process and its ability to investigate and explain natural phenomena?

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; Everyone possess the ability to believe in what they know to be truth, our Creator exists...at you could NOT believe...you 

That is the damming flaw of your argument. If we knew it to be true, we would know; and faith becomes irrelevant. We do not know what you assert to be true. But if you know, why the need for faith? 

@ZeusAres42 ; @Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; @John_C_87 ; Assurance does not negate faith...faith engenders assurance...as it is the one who believes by faith that receives the confirmation of Truth from the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13). First, we believe what our Lord has said and our belief is rooted in faith and faith establishes covenant with the Father; that is, faith-belief-trust in Jesus as our Messiah (John 3) which then results in the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) who provides assurance that we are children of Elohim (Romans 8:16) and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who is confirmation as Guarantor of relationship with the Father and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who is our Teacher (1 John 2:27) that confirms with assurance all that the Father and Jesus and the Spirit teach throughout the Scriptures. 

We receive confirmation of these things through faith that endows us with the Spirit who is our assurance of salvation and Truth concerning what is taught in Scripture...but these things are initiated by believing-faith that what Elohim has said is TRUE and will come to pass just as He has promised...this is what pleases our Heavenly Father...that we trust Him. If you desire to know divine TRUTH...you must first approach the Father in faith-belief that HE IS and will do exactly as He has promised (Hebrews 11:6).

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. 

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Thank you for asking

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

If I may I would now like to genuinly explore how you have come about to know what you claim to know about God and about science here for that matter. Let's start here:

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When you mention the universe coming from 'nothing,' how do you define 'nothing' in this context? And how does this concept compare to the explanations provided by contemporary physics or cosmology regarding the origins of the universe?

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

You’ve mentioned the astronomical improbabilities of the fundamental forces in our universe. How do you determine the probabilities that these constants could arise in a manner that allows for the existence of the universe and life? And have you ever explored alternative scientific explanations that account for these constants without invoking a mind?

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

How do you reconcile the appearance of design with the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection? What makes the scientific explanations for the origin of life less plausible to you than the idea of a designer?

In addition to the above I would also like to aske the following:

• Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'faith' in the context given regarding not having enough faith to be an Atheist? And how does this 'faith' compare to the confidence or trust that individuals place in scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life?
• Also, when it comes to scientific attempts to understand the universe's origins and the emergence of life, how do you evaluate the evidence and theories proposed by scientists? What criteria do you use to assess the validity and reliability of scientific explanations?
  
• Lastly, have you ever considered how scientists and those who may not believe in a deity approach the questions of the universe’s origins and the complexity of life? What are your thoughts on the scientific process and its ability to investigate and explain natural phenomena?

I think many atheists think the nothing of the universe is just that - the absence of anything.  Lawrence Krauss in his book a Universe from Nothing - means a virtual particle (quantum fluctuation). In other words a bit of energy that for fractions of a second appear as matter.  The actual duration can vary, but it is typically extremely brief, in the order of 10^(-21) seconds or even shorter.  The problems with this theory are many:
1)  A fluctuation that is big enough to create a universe would last for even a shorter duration of time.  The problem is that the formation of the fundamental forces of the universe are calculated to take much more time than that to form, meaning that the fluctuation appears and disappears before inflation can kick in.  In other words you can't get a universe out of it.
2) You need a perfect 0 net energy in the universe for this to work.  No calculation shows this - in fact, you made a big deal recently that it was found to not be a net zero measurement.  
3) If this could happen, then we should see examples of it happening in our universe - this is the Boltzmann brain argument
4) As Sean Carroll points out that it is much more likely that we should be observing a much smaller universe than what we do - for it is much more likely to have much smaller fluctuations of energy.  We should see lots of stuff coming into being like bicycles and big screen tvs - all of which are much less complex than universes, and we should see them all the time.  The fact we don't suggests that this can't happen since its had infinity to happen already. 

The universe does appear to be finely tuned.  Every scientist agrees on this.  Let's look at just a few examples.

1) The low entropy of the universe that was needed to create a universe.  Nobel prize winner Roger Penrose calculated that, out of 10^10^123 possible starting points for the universe only one would have as low entropy as ours.  He observed there is no known reason for the fundamental forces to have the values that they do.   Again, to put the number 10^10^23 into perspective, this number is massively larger than the number of particles in the universe 10^10^80.  That smaller number means if just one electron in the entire universe was more or less, then the universe could not have formed, but remember that 10^10^123 is much, much, much larger.  That's incredibly fine tuned.

2)  The gravitational constant and the weak force constants.  If you subscribe to a quantum field theory class of theories for the creation of the universe then the cosmological constant (Λ) needs to be a magnitude of fifty orders as though you expected an inch and measured 1,578,282,282,282,282,282,282,282, 282,282,282,282,282,282,282 miles instead - of the amount of the vacuum energy to account for inflation.  As Cosmologist Paul Davies explains:

"If G, or gw, differed from their actual values by even one part in 10^50, the precise balance against Λbare [the "true" cosmological constant] would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered. ...If Λ were several orders of magnitude greater, the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force. If Λ were negative, the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe. It is truly extraordinary that such dramatic effects would result from changes in the strength of either gravity, or the weak force, of less than one part in 10^50." -Paul Davies, Physicist

That's incredibly fined tuned - a small variation (think just a few particles plus or minus) results in no universe - either the gravitational force is too strong and the universe crushes in on itself, or it is too weak and atoms can't form.  Again, THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW THAT FORCES THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO.  

3) The Strong Nuclear force constant - As Walter Bradley explains -

"A 2 percent reduction in the strong force and its associated constant would preclude the formation of nuclei with larger numbers of protons, making the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen impossible. On the other hand, if the strong force and associated constant were just 2 percent greater than it is, then all hydrogen would be converted to helium and heavier elements from the beginning, leaving the universe no water and no long-term fuel for the stars." 

If neutrons were just a fraction stronger or weaker then we don't get any elements other than hydrogen - so no water, and no fuel for stars.  Now I am going to mention this a third time, because I want to be sure you get this point - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT COMPELS ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FORCES TO HAVE THE VALUES THEY DO.  In fact there are lots of evidence which suggests that the values should be very different - such as the cosmological constant.  I could continue to do this for dozens more aspects of how our universe is finely tuned.  Now you can argue well we just got lucky.  Winning the lottery once is lucky.  Winning it every day for a billion trillion years though is more than luck.  

Regarding evolution - I don't need evolution to be true or false for my faith.  I think you owe some proof though for such a theory.  If non-life can created life then why haven't thousands of scientists who have been focused on the issue and have spent billions of dollars to create life - failed to do , what non-thinking minerals created?  They can't even explain a process that will create even a simple single celled life form.  Honest scientists will tell you that if evolution occurred there are at least 10 'miracles' that had to have happened for it occur - so in my thinking, if evolution happened, its evidence for God.  If you think non-life created life without any aid then create some life.  Prove your point.  

I think it takes real faith to look at the complexity of the universe, the fact it had a beginning, the complexity of life, and the absence of evidence to replicate any of it, to believe there is no God.  If you walked along a beach and found a cell phone.  I guess you could reason that the wind and minerals mixed in such a way to build a functioning cell phone, but it is much more reasonable to believe that an intelligence made the phone you found.  In the same way, it is much more reasonable, looking at all the evidence to conclude that there is a God.  

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ; Everyone possess the ability to believe in what they know to be truth, our Creator exists...at you could NOT believe...you 

That is the damming flaw of your argument. If we knew it to be true, we would know; and faith becomes irrelevant. We do not know what you assert to be true. But if you know, why the need for faith? 

@ZeusAres42 ; @Factfinder ; @MayCaesar ; @John_C_87 ; Assurance does not negate faith...faith engenders assurance...as it is the one who believes by faith that receives the confirmation of Truth from the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13). First, we believe what our Lord has said and our belief is rooted in faith and faith establishes covenant with the Father; that is, faith-belief-trust in Jesus as our Messiah (John 3) which then results in the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) who provides assurance that we are children of Elohim (Romans 8:16) and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who is confirmation as Guarantor of relationship with the Father and it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who is our Teacher (1 John 2:27) that confirms with assurance all that the Father and Jesus and the Spirit teach throughout the Scriptures. 

We receive confirmation of these things through faith that endows us with the Spirit who is our assurance of salvation and Truth concerning what is taught in Scripture...but these things are initiated by believing-faith that what Elohim has said is TRUE and will come to pass just as He has promised...this is what pleases our Heavenly Father...that we trust Him. If you desire to know divine TRUTH...you must first approach the Father in faith-belief that HE IS and will do exactly as He has promised (Hebrews 11:6).

So the bible says you must have faith, you have faith cause the bible says you must and you figured this out before you read the bible. The bible says spiritual things are foolishness to men who don't believe; but you can't believe unless you're called and so there must be a hell because the one thing god can't do is create a perfect society without the senseless torture of those who do not believe the circular logic of your faith. That about it ricky?

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

If I may I would now like to genuinly explore how you have come about to know what you claim to know about God and about science here for that matter. Let's start here:

I am amazed that someone could believe that the universe came from nothing. I don't know how they could logically conclude such a thing.  Yet, a lot of atheist are more willing to believe that the universe came from nothing, than believe that the universe came from God.

When you mention the universe coming from 'nothing,' how do you define 'nothing' in this context? And how does this concept compare to the explanations provided by contemporary physics or cosmology regarding the origins of the universe?

When I see the astronomical improbabilities of all of the fundamental forces in our universe having values that will allow for a universe, not just for life, I can't help but think that it is more probable than not that such a universe is the product of a mind than random chance.  When I see the complexity of even the simplest life form and look at its chromosomal structure - it certainly looks like code to me, and code needs someone to write it.  People like Cricket, who co discovered DNA have admitted the complexity of even the simplest forms of life are beyond scientific explanations, yet atheists believe that non-life created life.  Yet, they can't provide a single example of this happening.  They can't create life, even using their minds, to do so.  Yet, they think it is more likely life came from non-life, even though it can't be explained or replicated even with intentional intellect behind it. 

You’ve mentioned the astronomical improbabilities of the fundamental forces in our universe. How do you determine the probabilities that these constants could arise in a manner that allows for the existence of the universe and life? And have you ever explored alternative scientific explanations that account for these constants without invoking a mind?

Science suggests that the universe had a beginning.  That at some point the universe made up 0 space.  How much stuff can you fit into 0 space.  According to many atheists, you can fit entire universes in 0 space.  This to me, seems worse than appealing to magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  I've said this before, but I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. 

How do you reconcile the appearance of design with the scientific understanding of evolution and natural selection? What makes the scientific explanations for the origin of life less plausible to you than the idea of a designer?

In addition to the above I would also like to aske the following:

• Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'faith' in the context given regarding not having enough faith to be an Atheist? And how does this 'faith' compare to the confidence or trust that individuals place in scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and life?
• Also, when it comes to scientific attempts to understand the universe's origins and the emergence of life, how do you evaluate the evidence and theories proposed by scientists? What criteria do you use to assess the validity and reliability of scientific explanations?
  
• Lastly, have you ever considered how scientists and those who may not believe in a deity approach the questions of the universe’s origins and the complexity of life? What are your thoughts on the scientific process and its ability to investigate and explain natural phenomena?

@ZeusAres42 ; @Factfinder ; @MayCaesar

1) Evolution is false...it is not science...it is a religion.

2) The Atheist believes that all we perceive with our senses; the Atheist believes the incredibly complex human genome originates from nothing...that exploded. I do not possess sufficient faith to believe that theory as it defies logic and reason.

3) Scientists don't have any valid theories concerning the origin of life, matter, the Universe...descent with modification - molecules to man evolution are not possible.

4) Evolutionists are not scientists...they are cult members of the Religion(s) of Atheism, Agnosticism, Secular Humanism. It is the scientific method or process that nullifies the "theory" of evolution...there is no way to confirm data for immutability, repeatability, that is prehistoric and unverifiable nor do true transitional fossils exist. If descent with modification were true, our Earth would be replete with multiple states of transitioning species yet our archeological finds confirm humans, dogs, cats, monkeys...

Darwin's idiocy has destroyed our culture through the brainwashing of our youth.
There has never existed a greater progenitor of atheism, secular humanism, than Darwin's theory forced into the public classroom as a "biological science" one-year subsequent the removal of Jesus and Prayer and Bible Reading via Engel v. Vitale (1962).

 

Dreamer

Zues makes many solid points, but I respectfully disagree. Belief in God(s) is the status quo. The term atheist can be used broadly often refers to a non-belief in God(s) as well as supernatural beings unicorns, faeries, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

According to wiki over half the world believes in Christianity or Islam. Christianity is the status quo in my local area. Everyone assumes everyone else is a Christian until otherwise. This also creates privilege.

  We need labels to help break the status quo. I am even considering calling myself Bright in lieu of atheist because so many Christians are incredibly credulous and fall for every MLM scheme. 

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please I specifically asked you. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. I don't think you will now but that's fine too. You sounded a little angry in your last post. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.  

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

If you understood science at all, you'd know the correct answer to your  silly Darwin/psychologist meme is, "why doctor, you and I are transitional fossils waiting to be discovered at some future point." 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Not true...other than minor variances due nutrition and genomic atrophy, we're everything Adam was...

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please I specifically asked you. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. I don't think you will now but that's fine too. You sounded a little angry in your last post. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.  

@ZeusAres42 ; I responded to your questions...that's the best I can do...

ZeusAres42

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, Still waiting for you to respond to my quesions please I specifically asked you. And if you could refrain from using any deepities for a moment that would be great. Thanks. I don't think you will now but that's fine too. You sounded a little angry in your last post. Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.  

@ZeusAres42 ; I responded to your questions...that's the best I can do...

show me. because I can't find you have repsonded to any of the questions I specifically asked you last. You responded to what I asked just_sayin; not you. Please do no lie. If you could be honest and acually respond then to what I asked you that would be great. Thanks.