GOP rep discovers terrifying fact: That non-Christians exist

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

To say something is WRONG, you have to have proof. So, where is it? Notice, saying something is WRONG is different than saying you don't know.

You don't get it, do you? Religions make certain claims, thus we can say they are wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based on facts/not based on reasoning. No matter what, it's up to you to prove your claim. Meanwhile, we're sitting and eating popcorn waiting for some real evidence.

No no no, you've shifted your position. You said it was WRONG. Not unproven. WRONG. (Note, it would be incorrect to say he's moving the goalposts. He's just shifting nervously to an easier position once he realized he had no proof)

[Mavorpen]

No no no, you've shifted your position. You said it was WRONG. Not unproven. WRONG. (Note, it would be incorrect to say he's moving the goalposts. He's just shifting nervously to an easier position once he realized he had no proof)

I didn't shift my position. Did I not distinctly say they are wrong?

You don't get it, do you? Religions make certain claims, thus we can say they are wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based on facts/not based on reasoning.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

There's no punishment. If the baptism didn't happen, you would still go to the same place. With baptism, you have the option to go to Heaven if you accepted Christ and all those other things.

Then where do I go? When I offered Asgaard as an example you said god chooses anyway...so what was the point of consecrating my dead body?

1. Incorrect usage of the word consecrating
2. We don't do anything with the dead body.


There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

No no no, you've shifted your position. You said it was WRONG. Not unproven. WRONG. (Note, it would be incorrect to say he's moving the goalposts. He's just shifting nervously to an easier position once he realized he had no proof)

I didn't shift my position. Did I not distinctly say they are wrong?

You don't get it, do you? Religions make certain claims, thus we can say they are wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based on facts/not based on reasoning.

You can only say someone is WRONG by proving they are WRONG. Unproven doesn't make a claim wrong. In fact, their are claims which cannot be proven, which are true (see Godel incompleteness theorem)

[Leiurus]

There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

Is there an Extra-Terrestrial kingdom too?

[Goldwateria (Ancient)]

Then where do I go? When I offered Asgaard as an example you said god chooses anyway...so what was the point of consecrating my dead body?

1. Incorrect usage of the word consecrating
2. We don't do anything with the dead body.


There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

The Telestial Kingdom?

Where have I heard that before?...
...
Oh my stars, evil people go to the Cellular network in San Francisco according to Mormon ideology!
Actually makes a disturbing amount of sense.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

1. Incorrect usage of the word consecrating
2. We don't do anything with the dead body.


There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

The Telestial Kingdom?

Where have I heard that before?...
...
Oh my stars, evil people go to the INTERNET in San Francisco according to Mormon ideology!
Actually makes a disturbing amount of sense.

What?

[Mavorpen]

You can only say someone is WRONG by proving they are WRONG. Unproven doesn't make a claim wrong. In fact, their are claims which cannot be proven, which are true (see Godel incompleteness theorem)

Dear gods, can you read? At all? You show them to be wrong by showing their claims to be wrong. Where did I say "unproven"? I never said that, you decided yourself to insert that word into my argument when I never said such a thing.

Lol at Godel's incompleteness theorems. What does Wikipedia have to say about this?

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics.

You were saying?

[Goldwateria (Ancient)]

The Telestial Kingdom?

Where have I heard that before?...
...
Oh my stars, evil people go to the INTERNET in San Francisco according to Mormon ideology!
Actually makes a disturbing amount of sense.

What?

It was a joke. The Company's name was "Telestial" like "Telestial kingdom".
Admittedly, it was a very BAD joke but this is the internet, standards are lower.

[Veladio]

Then where do I go? When I offered Asgaard as an example you said god chooses anyway...so what was the point of consecrating my dead body?

1. Incorrect usage of the word consecrating
2. We don't do anything with the dead body.


There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

Then what happened to the "all religions are partially right"? because that is a novelty item right there. you are performing a ritual aimed at saving my immortal soul...therefore you are by extension praying for it...therefore you are violating my free will.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths

Yup.

OK, so, go ahead. Prove there is no God.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

1. Incorrect usage of the word consecrating
2. We don't do anything with the dead body.


There are two places you can go, with many different levels inside them. Terrestrial Kingdom, where good people go who reject Christ, or people who accept Christ but don't do anything about it. The Telestial kingdom is where murderers, Hitler, so on so forth end up.

Then what happened to the "all religions are partially right"? because that is a novelty item right there. you are performing a ritual aimed at saving my immortal soul...therefore you are by extension praying for it...therefore you are violating my free will.

I am not praying for it. I haven't said a prayer for you.

[Veladio]

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths

Yup.

OK, so, go ahead. Prove there is no God.

...really? you just used THAT argument?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Yup.

OK, so, go ahead. Prove there is no God.

...really? you just used THAT argument?

I used only because he said Atheists prove religion wrong. That implies proof. I don't use that argument on the people who say "I don't know". To say there is no God, requires proof.

[Veladio]

...really? you just used THAT argument?

I used only because he said Atheists prove religion wrong. That implies proof. I don't use that argument on the people who say "I don't know". To say there is no God, requires proof.

or the BELIEF that there is no god(s)

[Mavorpen]

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths

Yup.

OK, so, go ahead. Prove there is no God.

I. Already. Did. Can you please at least attempt to read?

[Mavorpen]

...really? you just used THAT argument?

I used only because he said Atheists prove religion wrong. That implies proof. I don't use that argument on the people who say "I don't know". To say there is no God, requires proof.

No. I. Did. Not. I NEVER said the word proof. I said we can conclude the religions are wrong by showing their claims are baseless/wrong. READ. For the love of gods, READ.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Yup.

OK, so, go ahead. Prove there is no God.

I. Already. Did. Can you please at least attempt to read?

Your "we can prove they're wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based in fact/not based on reasoning" fails unless you show their claim is incorrect. Basic logic test.

"There are pink elephants, therefore the sky is blue" I concluded something which was true, that the sky is blue (blar blar we all know it's purple yadada yadaa you get the point), which was not based in fact or reasoning.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

I used only because he said Atheists prove religion wrong. That implies proof. I don't use that argument on the people who say "I don't know". To say there is no God, requires proof.

No. I. Did. Not. I NEVER said the word proof. I said we can conclude the religions are wrong by showing their claims are baseless/wrong. READ. For the love of gods, READ.

To do the large part, you need PROOF

[Veladio]

I. Already. Did. Can you please at least attempt to read?

Your "we can prove they're wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based in fact/not based on reasoning" fails unless you show their claim is incorrect. Basic logic test.

"There are pink elephants, therefore the sky is blue" I concluded something which was true, that the sky is blue (blar blar we all know it's purple yadada yadaa you get the point), which was not based in fact or reasoning.

No...they concluded it by using evidence in the natural world vs. what your scriptures say. Oh My Gods...never before have i seen an argument where a Wiccan and an Athiest are both trying to go against a Mormon...

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Your "we can prove they're wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based in fact/not based on reasoning" fails unless you show their claim is incorrect. Basic logic test.

"There are pink elephants, therefore the sky is blue" I concluded something which was true, that the sky is blue (blar blar we all know it's purple yadada yadaa you get the point), which was not based in fact or reasoning.

No...they concluded it by using evidence in the natural world vs. what your scriptures say. Oh My Gods...never before have i seen an argument where a Wiccan and an Athiest are both trying to go against a Mormon...

So you DO need proof.

Returning back to my original point. Prove there is no God.

[Mavorpen]

Your "we can prove they're wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based in fact/not based on reasoning" fails unless you show their claim is incorrect. Basic logic test.

So you ADMIT we can "prove" them wrong. Thank you.

"There are pink elephants, therefore the sky is blue" I concluded something which was true, that the sky is blue (blar blar we all know it's purple yadada yadaa you get the point), which was not based in fact or reasoning.

This is undoubtedly the worst analogy I've ever seen in my entire life. In one conclusion, you can test it. In the other, you cannot.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Your "we can prove they're wrong by showing their claims are incorrect/not based in fact/not based on reasoning" fails unless you show their claim is incorrect. Basic logic test.

So you ADMIT we can "prove" them wrong. Thank you.

"There are pink elephants, therefore the sky is blue" I concluded something which was true, that the sky is blue (blar blar we all know it's purple yadada yadaa you get the point), which was not based in fact or reasoning.

This is undoubtedly the worst analogy I've ever seen in my entire life. In one conclusion, you can test it. In the other, you cannot.

You "can prove" them wrong. You just have to have proof. Proof I'm still waiting for.

You can make a correct conclusion off incorrect reasoning or non sequiturs, as I've proven.

[Mavorpen]

To do the large part, you need PROOF

Please, explain why, since according to you, you don't need to prove anything in order to discover the truth, despite the fact that in order to prove anything, you need to use either evidence or reasoning. And reasoning is linked to logic, which is a method of philosophy, which deals with truth.

[Milks Empire]

Then again given what most Family Values politicians get caught doing...

One in a hundred is "most" to you. I understand.
Meanwhile, I was perplexed that someone (Milks E) who is so passionate about LGBT issues would use the word "cocksucker" as an insult.

I chalk it up to a bit more George Carlin than is probably healthy.