This is a big spoiler for the Atheists and science.

[TheTruth101]

This is Prophetess Lady Vanga who predicted the 9/11 terrorist attack as well as others that came true.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PD4x5toZMPY/T ... /vanga.jpg


Now, This is one of her predictions of the 9/11.

September 11
In 1989 she predicted the World Trade Center disaster in the following statement:

"Horror, horror! The American brethren will fall after being attacked by the steel birds. The wolves will be howling in a bush, and innocent blood will be gushing."


"Brethren" is believed to refer to the "Twin" Towers or the "Brothers". "Steel Birds" are obviously the jets. The part about the bush is believed to refer to President Bush.

Prophetess Lady Vanga was blind all her life. Some of the debates that I have held with other Atheists in the past was of how EYES (meaning memory recollection) was the only source to dreams. Now, this prophetess here clearly can SEE (through her prohecy stating "objects" wolves and towers etc.) when she was blind ALL OF HER LIFE.


How do you explain this one science? If you cant define it by definbition in accordance to science, then it is done by God. (like what I've been sayiing from day 1 on this forum that dreams come from God)

[Ooberman]

Poe's law

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

Poe's law states:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Jesus, you're right... I should have guessed. What a waste of time for everyone involved.

[TheTruth101]

Poe's law

Poe's law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

Poe's law states:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Jesus, you're right... I should have guessed. What a waste of time for everyone involved.

Refer to post 59 again.
As far as everything else. Just another flamebait. (used to it by now)

[TheTruth101]

\And the evident fact. All human beings that enter heavens gets a NEW everlasting body that does NOT age. (As scriptured)

Prove this is true. Not that it says it in a book, but that it is true. Otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims.

They are not unsubstantiated you see. The claims are valid within the Bible therefore, substantiated.

[Ooberman]

\And the evident fact. All human beings that enter heavens gets a NEW everlasting body that does NOT age. (As scriptured)

Prove this is true. Not that it says it in a book, but that it is true. Otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims.

They are not unsubstantiated you see. The claims are valid within the Bible therefore, substantiated.

Complete Poe. You got me, I admit it. You're good. I should have known from all the grandiose claims: "The Truth 101", "God's Apostle" and all that. The archaic beliefs...
Grrr... I hate when I miss a Poe.

[JoeyKnothead]

I pray y'all'll allow me to pour some ketchup on this...

From Post 9:

"Believed" to refer is not the same as, "and that, folks, is exactly what is meant".

Make a prophecy vague enough, and any act fit(s).

The prophecy is not vague at all.

Not to the one getting reeled in, it ain't.

You declare some "wolf" is involved in all this.

What data have you presented that it was wolves that drove into these buildings, or that these buildings were the wolves that got all the drove into, or that the folks driving these wolves mighta been the wolves this lady was set to carry on about?

I ain't so upset about it, but I declare you are using personal, unconfirmible definitions in place of showing these actions directly relate to this woman's notions.

A wolf flew into a bush? There was two bushes and some Muslims, and them Muslims found them a wolf to beat up them two bushes? But them bushes ain't trees, they's presidents, or buildings, or wolves? And by wolf, we mean "jet", and by "jet" we mean, Muslims? How convoluted must all this get before we realize we've done tried to unconvolute what was setting there being all convoluted to begin with?

On a yearly occasion I see leaves fall from the trees. On none of those occasions has that fact ever led me to believe the sky was fixing to do it the same.

It gives direct numbers as to the prophecy being met. Even a name (bush) as well as "two" jets and etc.

It may give "direct numbers", and it may propose a bush in there in it.

What it doesn't do is declare that on this date, at this time, and under these irrefutable circumstances, some goofy Muslims are dead set to fly them some planes into various buildings throughout the land.

In all, the point of this post is about again, for the most part, how a single human being can have "visions" or "pictures" when that very human being have not seen a single object visually her entire life. (she was blind from birth).

As I note some later refutations within this thread about when this lady got her all the blind, I see nothing in your post that indicates the blind can't have them some stuff explained to 'em.

Within science and Atheists on this forum, "dreams" as an example are said to be caused by memory recollection or muscle memory. In all, its speaking of "memory" being the very foundation of dreams that we have and etc.

Then surely you can show us where this lady has never had the world around her explained to her.

But, as clearly seen here, the prophetess takes in accounts of defining shapes and names of the shapes when she has never seen anything her entire life. In this case, science falls flat here for the "conclusion" saying that dreams are done by our "brains".

Later data within this thread indicates this lady saw her some stuff, but only maybe her eyes ain't too set to do it now.

I quoted a verse saying that Jesus comes as a lightning (electrons) and when we dream (have pictures when we dream) our electrons are doing the work.

I'll accept all that.

What I won't accept is an implication or claim that some god is the cause of it, unless, of course, you can show such is the case.

The biblical scriptures state that dreams are being brought on by God, and in this case, this is the logical sense all viewers of this thread should take into account of being "logic", since science itself and it conclusion as to dreams have been exploited 100% here by a prophetess of God.

They also declare that poking a stick in the ground can influence the color or patterns of mammalian offspring.

You ever poke you a stick in the ground, just so you can have you a polka-dotted pork chop?

So this raises the question, and in accordance to science putting "dreams" as to memory and soley the brain, If one does NOT have memory of the visual, where is she getting the pictires from? The logical conclusion would be of another being, or God, hence she was identified as a prophetess.

Later data within this thread indicates she may just well be remembering some of the stuff she saw before she got all the blinded.

From what I remember Joey, you were the one that put up a source of electrons being the factor or grounder of dreams long time ago. (Good going there, lol).

Laugh 'til you're blue in the face.

And in among all that laughter, you'll not ever show this vague 'prophecy' to approach anything but, and don't this beat all, vague.

[Clownboat]

\And the evident fact. All human beings that enter heavens gets a NEW everlasting body that does NOT age. (As scriptured)

Prove this is true. Not that it says it in a book, but that it is true. Otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims.

They are not unsubstantiated you see. The claims are valid within the Bible therefore, substantiated.

Are all claims in all holy books true in your world, or just claims from the Bible? Except of course for the claims in the Bible that you deem to not be true.

[Ooberman]

Guys, he's a Poe. Don't get sucked in. He's a Time Vampire - sucking the time out of your life.

If you are an atheist, Time is critical. It's real and it's finite. Be careful who you let use up your time, and be brutal to those who waste it.

[Nilloc James]

I call this game prophet roullette: make a vague prediction then keep spinning the wheel until something that resembles the prediction comes true. Note that the prophet can never be shown wrong - and with enoigh interpretarion is always right.

[Ooberman]

I call this game prophet roullette: make a vague prediction then keep spinning the wheel until something that resembles the prediction comes true. Note that the prophet can never be shown wrong - and with enoigh interpretarion is always right.

Yep, after all there is bound to have been something that resembles a vague prophesy.

The miracle would be if all prophesies were true, or if all prophesies were false!

Instead, it is completely reasonable to think that many prophesies (guesses) are right in some way or another.

[Wootah]

Guys, he's a Poe. Don't get sucked in. He's a Time Vampire - sucking the time out of your life.

If you are an atheist, Time is critical. It's real and it's finite. Be careful who you let use up your time, and be brutal to those who waste it.

Moderator Warning


Please don't directly discuss other forum participants. There is ignore functionality if you do not wish to read another member's posts.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.