Atheists, you don't like our answers -- do you have answers of your own?

There are probably more than just a few on this forum who do not take kindly to directives.

 

Why? Do you have any reason to think it was not a well-meant, friendly directive?

 

Whether it was or was not makes no difference. Who gave authority to anyone to give directives?

 

Oh, don't be so touchy. It was just a pointer. If you don't like orders, why take it as an order? Just to have something to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about?

 

I don't lean on emotionalism to find reason to respond.

 

If someone asks a waitress where the restroom is in a restaurant and she directs them is it rude??? I was asked a question and I directed the poster to a link where he/she could find my answers.

 

Oh, did you just affect to be offended, then?

 

di·rect (d-rkt, d-)
v. di·rect·ed, di·rect·ing, di·rects
v.tr.
1. To manage or conduct the affairs of; regulate.
2. To have or take charge of; control. See Synonyms at conduct.
3. To give authoritative instructions to: directed the student to answer.
4. To cause to move toward a goal; aim. See Synonyms at aim.
5. To show or indicate the way for: directed us to the airport.
6. To cause to move in or follow a straight course: directed their fire at the target.
7. To indicate the intended recipient on (a letter, for example).
8. To address or adapt (remarks, for example) to a specific person, audience, or purpose.
9.
a. To give guidance and instruction to (actors or musicians, for example) in the rehearsal and performance of a work.
b. To supervise the performance of.
Number 5 would be my intent, oh easily bruised one. In addition my "directive" was meant for the poster Blackrook, your response was neither warranted or needed, gday

 

response made to wrong post.

 

Irrelevant but Blackrook did just that.

 

Strange. I looked back at the 12 postings you have made on this forum, and seemingly none in this section presented you with a question for you to respond to. Hmmmm.

- - - Updated - - -

That is really a lame excuse of semantic proficiency.

 

Wha? That is really incoherent.

 

Your spelling is atrocious also.

 

Attacking a spelling, grammar or punctuation error that someone made,though you understood their response is lame. Instead of responding to the points they raised you attack their ability, to convey their thoughts in words through typing. Now if someone touted how intelligent they are or how many degrees they hold then those attacks are valid. It is clearly a modus operandi with someone who has no intelligent rebuttal. Gday!!

 

They don’t have any answers. That’s what critical theory is all about. Tearing down everybody else’s answers and offering nothing in return. The best question to ask these people is always, “Compared to what?” Most of them will answer with either a tap dancing circus of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) or just crickets.

Atheism doesn't know (*)(*)(*)(*). It cannot know (*)(*)(*)(*) by default. Because, as they'll tell you themselves, its whole purpose is not standing for anything. Thus their whole position can be boiled down to, "We don't have an answer, but yours is wrong." It's like arguing with a third grader.

 

No! I am attacking your prevarication. You said someone asked you a question... they did not. Gday.

 

I made notice of you attacking the spelling of someone else. In another post I tried to tell you that Blackrook, the person who started this thread posed a question to the Atheists in this forum, of which I happen to be.
NOTICE: Atheists, you don't like our answers -- do you have answers of your own? That is an interrogative otherwise known as a question. GDAY!!!

 

The Bible gives procedures to prove that Jesus was real. Yet no one has ever been able to use those procedures to prove that Jesus is real. Consequently the conclusion must be that Jesus isn't real. So believers' faith is worthless and they are to be pitied (1 Corinthians chapter 15).

 

Is this your field of expertise? or is this a hobby? how do you know so much about it?

 

How might we prove that God is imaginary? One way would be to find a contradiction between the definition of God and the God we experience in the real world.

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.

We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.

Will anything happen? No. Of course not.
Conclusion: GOD is a fairytale.

 

So basically God is your cosmic genie? you just have to "rub Him the right way"?

 

Sorry to have wasted your time.

 

Allow me to tell a parable.

One day someone, let's say you, sets-up an unopenable black box in the public square. Then you say "God is in this box! You should bow down and worship it! Pray to the box, and you will be answered! Oh, and your free-will offering to support this vital ministry will be appreciated...."

I come along and say "How can anyone know what is in the unopenable box? I doubt God is in the box."

You say "Oh, it's critical theory just tearing down! You say we're wrong, but YOU don't have an answer as to what's in the box. This is like arguing with a third grader!"

And it is.

 

It could be less of a waste if you tried to say what you mean instead of asking odd questions in an attempt to get me to say it for you....

 

if you can't answer the question, the way "teoyah" did, then we probably can't proceed any further.