If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Monad Portal]

Logic is not a random variable. There is no expression in logic for "I don't know".

yes its called a variable you fucking ape-faced goddamned dumb ignoramus.

we're all tired of your subpar nonsense.

 

[Into the Night]

it doesn't matter.

somehow they are observed as dots.

you're free to argue the hadron's dots are unseenly or whatever, until then, stfu.

A quark is not a dot.

It is not possible to see a quark, or to measure a quark. They are THEORETICAL.
You can't shut people up. No matter what you do, they don't have to shut up because you tell them to.

 

[Into the Night]

If you must say so.

So...every time you use that acronym, you admitted that it's just argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Genesis 1:6 (KJV): "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters".

Another word for 'land', dope.

Genesis 1:7 (KJV): "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so".

Another word for 'land', dope.

Genesis 1:8 (KJV): "And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day".
Genesis 1:14 (KJV): "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years".
Psalm 19:1 (KJV): "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork".

It also means 'expanse'. A 'land' of heaven, and a 'land' on Earth.

Firmament is from the Hebrew word raqia which is generally understood to mean to be something thin and solid, which would make sense because you wouldn't want all that blue water in the sky to come crashing down on you, right?

Redefinition fallacy. It means 'expanse', moron.

This is how Jews at the time of the Old Testament viewed the Earth:

No, it isn't.

I find it hilarious that deny the Bible, but then you try to quote scripture.


Go learn Hebrew, Latin, and English.

 

[Into the Night]

yes its called a variable you fucking ape-faced goddamned dumb ignoramus.

we're all tired of your subpar nonsense.

Logic is not a variable, NoName.

 

[Monad Portal]

A quark is not a dot.

It is not possible to see a quark, or to measure a quark. They are THEORETICAL.
You can't shut people up. No matter what you do, they don't have to shut up because you tell them to.

the colliders are producing little squiggly grams that have curly lines and dots.

its something.

you can say it isn't anything.

but I believe the hadrons.

 

[Monad Portal]

Logic is not a variable, NoName.

but variables do represent unknown quantities.

why are you willing to act retarded to achieve your goals?

what;s that about?

 

[Cypress]

There is no electrical charge to measure!!

The fractional charges of quarks have been measured indirectly by the world's best particle physicists working at the world's most prestigious high energy physics laboratories.

It is not possible to measure the mass of a quark (if any!).

The masses of the six kinds of quarks have been measured indirectly by the world's best particle physicists working at the world's most prestigious high energy physics laboratories.

Mass is not measured in volts!!!

MeV and GeV can be converted to mass equivalent by dividing by c-squared. That is the conventional way particle physicists report quark mass.

It is not possible to measure the 'spin' of a quark!!

The quantum spin of quarks have been determined indirectly by the world's best particle physicists working at the world's most prestigious high energy physics laboratories.

 

[ZenMode]

Another word for 'land', dope.

The blue water lands of Heaven?

Another word for 'land', dope.

The blue water lands of Heaven?

It also means 'expanse'. A 'land' of heaven, and a 'land' on Earth.

Right but, again, they believed that the sky was full of water, so there has to be something solid to hold the water in place and little windows to let the rain in occasionally.

Redefinition fallacy. It means 'expanse', moron.

Right but, again, they believed that the sky was full of water, so there has to be something solid to hold the water in place and little windows to let the rain in occasionally.

No, it isn't.

I find it hilarious that deny the Bible, but then you try to quote scripture.

I don't deny the Bible. It's a book of stories just like Harry Potter.

Go learn Hebrew, Latin, and English.

Why? It doesn't change the fact that OT writers thought there was a solid structure keeping the sky rivers from falling on them.

 

[Margot]

No. An excruciating method of execution is not salvation. Jesus Christ and His gospel is salvation.

He disagrees

 

[Margot]

Then why invent the term "immoral sinners" if there are only "sinners"?

I didn't invent the term!

 

[Margot]

That could be either green, white, blue, or red.

Better dead then Red

 

[IBDaMann]

The word 'repent' is a combination from Latin, first entering the English lexicon around the 13th century.
The Latin 'penitire' means to regret. The 're-' prefix here means to negate, or remove such regret.

Spanish has maintained the word all this time.

arrepentirse - to regret [ ar (denotes the verb form of repentance), repent, ir (indicates "ir" conjugation), se (reflexive verb) ]

The process of repentance is a multi-step process:
* Acknowledge the error.
* Try to make it right. If you have wronged someone, do what you can to mitigate it and seek their forgiveness.
* Forgive yourself.
* Prevent the error in the future. Return to a path free of it.
* For the Christian, follow the promptings and teachings of Jesus Christ, for if you follow these steps, He will also forgive you.

I have a few questions. This happens to be a huge atheist/Christian debate topic, mostly because Christians have many flavors of repentance.

A. The main one: Does repentance matter or is faith alone all that is needed? Take the case of a faithful individual who doesn't acknowledge an error. Does it matter? Does someone who is already "saved" really need Jesus Christ to keep on forgiving him?

B. Jesus died to save everyone; is He really going to go through all that just to not forgive someone a trespass?

C. Atheists and Protestants agree on your second point, but Catholics believe that Contrition, i.e. "confessing to a priest" absolves one of his sins. The wronged party is never faced or compensated because God has already done the forgiving, which is all that matters in Catholicism. (In Catholicism, one's soul is like one's clothing; it needs to be laundered periodically, which is what Contrition accomplishes, and one is free to go as long as one wants without laundering one's clothes, but he will be judged by his attire at the moment his time comes and the bouncer in the sky decides whether or not he gets into the club).

D. Are the five items you list above an algorithm or can they be done in a different order, e.g. forgive oneself first and jump out of the block of code?

E. Your last item in the list above indicates that one must follow the promptings and teachings of Jesus Christ, i.e. be a good person and live a good life, ... but that maxim seems to immediately get tossed out the 1-cubit x 1-cubit window every time, and replaced with "faith is all that matters", i.e. it's only a question of what one believes, which totally nullifies that final item on your list.

This process is designed to remove that regret (or 'pent') as you put it.

I really was just playing on the word "repent" as a repetition of a "pent". I was trying to figure out his angle on why repentence even matters; Christians have different meanings of "repentence", each with differing requirements to differing ends. But now that you mention it, I think "pent" is a much better word than "sin", although one might get the impression that they somehow come in fives.

It allows the person you wronged to go on with their life.

In my mind, this is the heart of the matter, and falls under "justice", but it's something that we can all handle here on Earth at our own personal level.

It allows YOU to go on with your life.

Well put. I think atheists stand with you on this one.

These are part of the teachings in the Bible. There is a way out of that regret, but it is more than just not committing the error again

I think atheists would agree with those teachings if for no other reason.

 

[IBDaMann]

Better dead then Red

Detter dead than Salvation? Now I'm confused.

 

[Margot]

Detter dead than Salvation? Now I'm confused.

 

[IBDaMann]

No such substance described in the Bible.

I tlooks like you need Spongy Iris to explain it to you again. Need I remind you of the glass in the Libyan desert? Of course, there's no denying the ultimate proof:

 

[IBDaMann]

I didn't invent the term!

Sure you did. It's in your post.

 

[WinterBorn]

All Bullshit

It is truth.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fractional charges of quarks have been measured indirectly

Science only accepts direct measures. All indirect and proxy measures are strictly verboten. You would know this if you weren't completely scientifically illiterate.

by the world's best particle physicists ...

Now you have convinced me that you refer to other dishonest, manipulative scientific illiterates as "the world's best particle physicists."

The world's best physicists deal in science that produces technology. No technology results from the gibberish of dishonest, manipulative scientific illiterates.

What technology did you say has resulted from these people for whom you shill?

working at the world's most prestigious high energy physics laboratories.

They don't sound very prestigious to me. How much commercial energy has ITER produced since formation in 2007?

There doesn't seem to be any prestige in any of these loser labs. No technology has emerged from anything they have done. They are all riding the big goose egg.

The masses of the six kinds of quarks have been measured indirectly

Discarded. That which hasn't been discovered has never been measured. It would appear that your illegitimate "indirect measure" is your only support for the declared "confirmation" of the discovery of quarks, despite science never confirming anything.

MeV and GeV can be converted to mass equivalent by dividing by c-squared.

One first needs a directly measured energy value, which cannot be produced from the unobserved/undetected which hasn't even been confirmed to exist (it has only been "declared" to exist by people merely theorizing that which is needed to secure their own funding.

That is the conventional way particle hucksters report on a sham.

FTFY. Tell me about it.

The quantum spin of quarks have been determined indirectly by the world's best particle physicists working at the world's most prestigious high energy physics laboratories.

You are just chanting. Indirect and proxy measures are not allowed. Quarks, by definition, cannot be observed/detected, thus, they have never been confirmed to somehow exist.

 

[IBDaMann]

it doesn't matter.

Yes, it matters. It is the crux of the issue. Quarks cannot be observed; ergo, they are not observed as dots, as fairies, as climate forcings or as anything else. They have never been confirmed. Quarks have been claimed to have been confirmed, but naturally all explanation as to how they were supposedly confirmed is never mentioned, because it can't be, because quarks cannot be observed/detected/confirmed.

somehow they are observed as dots.

That's the discarded claim, yes.

you're free to argue the hadron's dots are unseenly or whatever, until then, stfu.

I appreciate the vote for freedom. You are free to argue that you have detected the undetectable.