Jump to content

B_Dubb_B

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About B_Dubb_B

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. I'm having the same issue and I can't find a way out of it other than cheating (but I don't want to lose achievements). I noticed that this happened after Cillan attacked me with golems.
  2. Ohello all. I'm looking for a strong (not necessarily min-maxed) Potd Bleak Walker 2h sword heavy armor off tank/strong dps build with decent dialogue stats (if that still exists in this game). Wondering if anyone can help point me in the right direction (especially in regards to best multi class options). Thanks in advance for any help.
  3. Like I've said, I have no interest in this kind of discussion. Blame games and petty squabbles are pointless. Best of luck to you in your future endeavors.
  4. 1. Except for I gave you the exact quote of you doing it and you simply ignored it. I give proof, you give assertion. That's the difference between us. Tell me how that quote of yours was NOT misrepresenting my position. 2. That claim means God does not exist in English, again, unless repeating your own axiom (which idk if you even hold) that all ideas are manufactured. That's a philosophical viewpoint that I respect, but I highly doubt that's what you were saying. You were saying that the idea of God specifically was manufactured. While you may not have meant that to mean he is not real,
  5. Firstly, you were caught and shown to be misrepresenting my position, in the exact same way, no less than 3 times, once even after I showed it was outright misrepresentation. "You keep typing up 100 different ways of claiming the same thing: "it's okay to claim that something exists, and no one can deny it until they prove that it doesn't exist." Good for you." I never claimed any such thing and yet you claimed I did. So I find it kind of funny you continue to try to throw a fit about me misrepresenting your case (and I tried to be polite and simply concede so we could have a fruitful discussi
  6. Which is still NOT the same thing as saying, "science has proven that God does not exist." You are twisting my words and then proclaiming that I must provide evidence that proves your version of what you only wish I really said. I reject the notion that I must prove something I didn't say. Alright, true, and that 1 quote of mine was a simple mis-stating of your point. A simple clarification is all that's required (as you'll remember, I asked for clarification on exactly your point very early on). Can we move on and stop pretending small mistakes like this never happen? I still most
  7. First off, I was referring to the Christian God which stems from the Bible, which contains the Gospel's. Second, my exact comment was, "the Gospel's as the only source of evidence," which is in reference to my discussion with Silent Winter, where he presented the Bible - specifically the Gospel's - as evidence of God's existence. Third, I'm fully aware of other sources for Jesus. I mention Josephus in an earlier post, and I specifically cite the "historical Jesus" in a recent post. I am also aware of other sources of evidence of "God" as I mentioned to you specifically "The Dead Sea Scroll
  8. Nah, I'll pass. I've been through many, many such discussions over the years, and they never really go anywhere -- I was a regular on alt.atheism in the 1990's. I also haven't been really invested in the question for over fifteen years or so. I'm not all that interested anymore in what people believe; I'm more interested in the question of how people with different beliefs find ways to coexist and cooperate. That's a far more pressing question in my opinion, and likelier to lead to constructive outcomes. With all this obvious proof of the existence of god rattling around, it's a wonder
  9. Nah, I'll pass. I've been through many, many such discussions over the years, and they never really go anywhere -- I was a regular on alt.atheism in the 1990's. I also haven't been really invested in the question for over fifteen years or so. I'm not all that interested anymore in what people believe; I'm more interested in the question of how people with different beliefs find ways to coexist and cooperate. That's a far more pressing question in my opinion, and likelier to lead to constructive outcomes. Yeah I really feel you honestly. I suppose it's something about getting older, you
  10. That's the problem right there. The Bible isn't evidence for God, any more than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is evidence for God (or, if you will, the Iliad is evidence for Aphrodite). It's evidence that people believed in God, and about the kinds of things people believed about God. That's not the same thing at all. Sure, that's not really part of the discussion. My point there was to say that whatever evidence Christians think is in the bible, it's not the only evidence for God and thus showing the bible false doesn't show there's no good reason to believe in God (indeed, I'm m
  11. I stand by that claim. Science has not proven that God certainly does not exists. However, science has proven that all known evidence of God is purely manufactured by man-made doctrine. The scientific method requires consistency, however the Gospel's as the only source of evidence of God's existence contain many inconsistencies and contradictions. Through science we are able to discredit the only piece of evidence that God exists, albeit man-made evidence to begin with. If you care about the truth and how it is used, then you shouldn't have spent so much time purposely twisting my word
  12. Methodological naturalism can disprove a deity which acts measurably on the world though. It can't disprove a deity which sits passively outside the world of course, a neo-Platonist Prime Mover for example. But a God who answers prayers (or bestows punishments) to some measurable effect? Can be (and has been) disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, I know. Mentioning that it uses methodological naturalism was by no means to say it can't ever interact with the God question, simply that we don't expect it to by default and as such merely "we have no evidence of God" does not necessaril
  13. You are being purposely obtuse, and apparently convinced yourself that if you present questions in a rhetorical way you've somehow achieved something. You keep typing up 100 different ways of claiming the same thing: "it's okay to claim that something exists, and no one can deny it until they prove that it doesn't exist." Good for you. I took the "bait" with the author of this thread, Romanul; and I will gladly engage in the ideological debate with Silent Winter. Your attempts to add confusion and diffusion to the discussion won't be entertained much by yours truly. I disagree with you
  14. A lack of evidence does not entail that something does or probably does exist. I have supplied plenty of evidence showing that the only attempt at proving the existence of God is through man-made writings that explain phenomena that has never been confirmed or directly observed. Since the only attempt to ever prove the existence of God comes from humans, and not an actual deity, I draw the conclusion that the God as described in the man-made doctrine does in fact not exist. Do you believe that a 6 foot tall Orc is outside your house simply because I failed to prove that it isn't? All ev
×
×
  • Create New...