the confessions "Jesus is Lord"

[Shem Yoshi]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

[Athetotheist]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

Why should any nonbeliever so "confess"?

To make you feel good?

[TRANSPONDER]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

You have a few things to prove before you can put that before any atheists

(1) There is a god.

(2) it is Biblegod.

(3) Jesus is anything to do with it.

I'd say you have some work to do. And it will take more than referencing the tricks the mind pulls during NDE's to do it.

[Shem Yoshi]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

You have a few things to prove before you can put that before any atheists

(1) There is a god.

(2) it is Biblegod.

(3) Jesus is anything to do with it.

I'd say you have some work to do. And it will take more than referencing the tricks the mind pulls during NDE's to do it.

Actually belief is built on Faith

[TRANSPONDER]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

You have a few things to prove before you can put that before any atheists

(1) There is a god.

(2) it is Biblegod.

(3) Jesus is anything to do with it.

I'd say you have some work to do. And it will take more than referencing the tricks the mind pulls during NDE's to do it.

Actually belief is built on Faith

Actually, that argument is based on the fallacy of equivocation. You know what it is. Belief and Faith are used interchangeably, so Faith or belief based on good and valid evidence is supposedly the same as Faith or belief based on no good evidence. Same thing? No.

You know this. You may debate the evidence, but you know the difference. No need to debate that further, but I would like to ask, what was the point of that little trick? Did you think it would confuse us? Did you suppose it would impress anyone to show how you either don't understand reasoning or are prepared to vandalise it to ...try to confuse materialists so far as i can see? Does it not bother you that it just makes you and your case look bad?

And it's not the first time I've found myself asking that.

[Miles]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

You have a few things to prove before you can put that before any atheists

(1) There is a god.

(2) it is Biblegod.

(3) Jesus is anything to do with it.

I'd say you have some work to do. And it will take more than referencing the tricks the mind pulls during NDE's to do it.

Actually belief is built on Faith

Ah, you have this bass akwards. Faith is built on belief. Faith is the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they have absolutely no good evidence of its truth.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Is any nonbeliever willing to confess Jesus is Lord? Surely if God doesnt exists, it is harmless to confess Jesus is Lord.

In fact, not just the nonbeliever but the believers can as well...

You have a few things to prove before you can put that before any atheists

(1) There is a god.

(2) it is Biblegod.

(3) Jesus is anything to do with it.

I'd say you have some work to do. And it will take more than referencing the tricks the mind pulls during NDE's to do it.

Actually belief is built on Faith

Ah, you have this bass akwards. Faith is built on belief. Faith is the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they have absolutely no good evidence of its truth.

.

That's how I use the terms to avoid confusion. Belief based on very convincing evidence, Trust based on experience of what happens or does not (e.g you car will start, because engineering, not internal combustion gnomes that need to to be propitiated before getting in the car - though that is the sort of thing people did in the old days) and Faith I use specifically for claims that people Want to believe rather than have good reason to believe. I put Flying Saucers and Bigfoot in the same category. There's a Lot of 'evidence' but not yet enough to validate the belief. And the mindset is uncannily the same - or rather cannily; it is the same.

They will accuse skeptics of bias. No. I would be delighted if Flying Saucers or Bigfoot became a validated area of study. Just as I'm interested in studies in NDEs or any other unexplained phenomena. No, the bias is in demanding that it be accepted as per the faith claim Now.

[otseng]

Ah, you have this bass akwards.

Moderator Comment

Profanity, even coded ones, are not allowed.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus is Lord.

And I'm the pope.