Why doesn't God reveal himself to those who don't believe? (3 min.VID)

[Everythingg]

This made me lol. You tried to make talking about the wealth gap and economical warfare one of your main talking points when you know almost nothing about it.

So lets have a lesson on logical reasoning.

If some kid in the hood tell you that Best Buy stock is going through the roof cuz his cousin that works there noticed them selling a few extra tvs, are you going to believe him? What do you think his chances of being correct are?

If some Harvard educated Wall St hedge fund manager tells you to buy Best Buy because its going sky high, are you going to believe him? What do you think his chances of being correct are?

Who would you rather believe in this situation?

Breh I said fukk finance. I dont care about this system at all breh. Imma just use it to my advantage and bounce. shyt, I probably wont last long in this world anyways. Aint to many built like me no more. No brag, no boast, but I dont like to take BS. I dont like to be lied to. I dont like when things can be done to increase the living conditions for EVERYONE and they're not done. But wars are done. But trips to the moon and mars are done.

Breh, I might not believe either of them to be honest. Depends on the situation. I see what you're getting at, but its weak in comparison to what we're discussing. You just said that you'll place your faith in this guy because he went to harvard and has awards to his name I thought atheists dont believe without proof? If so, what proof have you seen that the guy is telling the truth?

 

[ill]

So christians (and I use that loosely) kill 3 mill and all hell breaks loose. But Stalin kills 20 million (which is about half of some estimates) and Hitler kills 6 mill (arent you a jew ) and we're in a better place?







And the person that originally stated that its more peaceful hasnt provided anything to support his opinion. Other than Mr. Pinker. Did he bring sources that he looked up that corroborated Pinker's claim? No. I got "He went to Harvard, he must be telling the truth" kind of answers.

Breh, even if I was an 4 generation african american (Im not) my history would still not start with slavery. That sounds like some cac shyt. So we started with WAY more than 5 and way MORE than those white men that enslaved us. They came to Africa (Egypt) and learned not the other way around.

Oh and you didnt answer. If I deserve 5, am given 5, then three is taken away, why would I be happy with 2?

Hitler and Stalin were horrific events in their own regards. They were also in the 20th century and almost antique status by definition. You said modern times. That wasn't modern times. That was my great-grandparents time. Also, 6 million and 20 million are still far less than the 72 million that the Crusades killed (in todays relative numbers). I don't know about you but I don't consider WW2 as "current times". Like I've said, we are in a better time right now and more peaceful. The most recent largest massacre was in 92 in Georgia and 22k were killed. Thats no where near the 6 million in Germany or the 20 million in Russia. And that was 20 years ago. It is a much more peaceful time now than before.

In regards to the Harvard professor, the reason I keep bringing up the stock buying is the same reason that you should believe the Harvard guy at his word. Just because the poster didn't elaborate doesn't mean that he's not correct. If the professor was wrong, lying, biased, etc, it would come out to the public and his theory would be disproved. It hasn't been disproved. That implies its correct. BG doesn't need to explain that to you. It should be common sense for you to understand that.

 

[ill]

Breh I said fukk finance. I dont care about this system at all breh. Imma just use it to my advantage and bounce. shyt, I probably wont last long in this world anyways. Aint to many built like me no more. No brag, no boast, but I dont like to take BS. I dont like to be lied to. I dont like when things can be done to increase the living conditions for EVERYONE and they're not done. But wars are done. But trips to the moon and mars are done.

Breh, I might not believe either of them to be honest. Depends on the situation. I see what you're getting at, but its weak in comparison to what we're discussing. You just said that you'll place your faith in this guy because he went to harvard and has awards to his name I thought atheists dont believe without proof? If so, what proof have you seen that the guy is telling the truth?

His proof are the pieces of paper that accredit him and prove his legitimacy. Its not some mystical powers saying that he's a smart guy and he's right. Its higher education that can be replicated and assessed. If you read his words he describes the metrics he used and how he got them. Its all in there. Its not just made up out of thin air. He set a criteria and he based his findings from there. Its documented, can be replicated, and can be scrutinized.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Hitler and Stalin were horrific events in their own regards. They were also in the 20th century and almost antique status by definition. You said modern times. That wasn't modern times. That was my great-grandparents time. Also, 6 million and 20 million are still far less than the 72 million that the Crusades killed (in todays relative numbers). I don't know about you but I don't consider WW2 as "current times". Like I've said, we are in a better time right now and more peaceful. The most recent largest massacre was in 92 in Georgia and 22k were killed. Thats no where near the 6 million in Germany or the 20 million in Russia. And that was 20 years ago. It is a much more peaceful time now than before.

In regards to the Harvard professor, the reason I keep bringing up the stock buying is the same reason that you should believe the Harvard guy at his word. Just because the poster didn't elaborate doesn't mean that he's not correct. If the professor was wrong, lying, biased, etc, it would come out to the public and his theory would be disproved. It hasn't been disproved. That implies its correct. BG doesn't need to explain that to you. It should be common sense for you to understand that.

The holocaust is the very first thing Dr. Pinker addresses in his TED talk, but of course 20 minutes was entirely too long for @King-Over-Kingz's attention span. On another note, nothing Pinker is saying is controversial or unfathomable, it's quite logical on it's own right even before you investigate his sources, what he is saying is pretty obvious to anyone who isn't a fear monger. People gain this false perception because of our insane access to information today. We have news from all over the world instantaneously, we hear about every single bad thing that happens, but in your immediate surroundings things are usually fine. Since violence and tragedy gets more viewers than good stories, the media focuses on those things and gives their audience a false representation of reality.

 

[NoMayo15]

Yes you did. You told me to research studies instead of pointing me to the one that YOU SAW that stated what you did. If you didnt see on that stated what you did what you trippin for? And why havent you admitted that YOU was the one that was wrong?

So you didnt get what I was trying to say when I elaborated on what I meant by comparing it to the situation of Africans? Any person would tell you that Africa (and the problems in it) are being ignored by the media. This doesnt mean it doesnt get attention. See this is what I explained in a following post. Did you respond to the post? Nope.

My goodness breh, can you try to keep up? I said telling me to go research is like me telling you to read the bible. Its sending me elsewhere instead of YOU (the person that claims to know this) explaining it. Of course I cannot explain the whole bible in a post, just as you cannot describe an elaborate study, but I can provide you the general information, THEN link you to what says what I am. You couldnt do that. Then when I said "the link doesnt say what you orignally stated" you get mad and start name calling. Then Im the one that looks like an @sshole for using smilies... Come on wit that.....

Follow the money is simple. Follow it. Where does the money come from? Where does it lead to? That should be that start of your answer of who the serpent is. I got the run around so Im giving it. Though this shouldnt be as "cryptic" as you're making it.

Ignoring something, and giving it "too little" attention are two different things buddy.

I'm not even gonna address this anymore. If you wanna know more about the research in OBEs, read more about the study referred to in the article and the sources on that wikipage. If you wanna know about Pinker's sources, then watch the information presented. Don't respond back with " Pshhhh I'm not watchin a 20 min video nikka". It's childish, breh. Dude goes over his entire book and you can see the sources of some of his information and how he ties it together.

You might actually learn something from researching and doing some reading. Reading the bible ISN'T going to prove god to me.

 

[Everythingg]

Yeah, I was mocking you. Because posting a million smileys in a post isn't a reasoned argument. It just makes you look like a dikk.

And when you act like a dikk, yeah people are more likely gonna act like a dikk back towards you.

See I didnt post smileys with no words. YOU DID. The only time I did that is when ol guy (I believe noon) was tryna clown because I believe people can do sorcery.

And to act as if the reason I got called names was because I used smiley's? And this is from you who has been on this forum longer than me. Just read my statements and respond. You didnt answer again. Who is the a$$hole? The one thats called names such as "dumbass" and "moron" and doesnt return any insults or the ones that do the name calling? As I said thats a moral high horse you're on. You should take a step down and try to see it objectively.

And I answered this. Yes. A resounding yes. At least the US generates about what it's debt is on a yearly basis. If I needed to come up with $40k for my child, and I didn't have shyt saved up, then yes... debt. Absolutely. I answered this already, what the fukk!

What makes you think one would never be able to pay off said debt? When has that been the premise? Now you're just pulling shyt out of your ass.

We will never be able to pay off the US debt if the Reserve is just printing money with nothing backing it, and loaning us it at interest. In other words, I have 1000 dollars and loan it to you at interest. Now you only have 1000, how are you gonna pay off that interest? Thats whats happening. All the money in circulation could never pay off the interest that has accumulated. And do you think the bankers are just gonna let us off the hook outta the kindness of their heart?

What are you talking about? What's going on? What revolt are you referring to?

Wow. Didnt think I would have to explain how the civil rights movement was revolting. I dont have to explain this do I?

I'm confident that, without a doubt it will be addressed in our life times. Not saying it will be paid off but taxes aren't going to be as low as they are forever.

Its not just gonna be erased. Unless you erase those that are holding the debt over our head

I disagree. And the abandoning father is mostly a myth. Plus there are tons today. Cornell West, Tavis Smiley, Neil de grasse Tyson come to mind. Plus there are plently of black entertainers to look up to. Don't look down on them just because they shoot a ball in a hoop. Oh... and the POTUS.

Does POTUS stand for puppet of the united states? Just wondering.


And how many youngings do you know that look up to those men? Very few and far in between. And the abandoning father is mostly a myth? Come on breh? Really? Exaggerated? I gotcha. MYTH? Not at all. And I dont need a role model. Though I may take positive qualities from humans, I dont need to put them on a pedestal to know what I should be doing. Thats where parenting comes from. Along with other unseen factors that always factor in.

I will GLADLY trade in public lynchings for BET.

Thats you. I rather have neither.

That's what I'm saying! Fight .... with litigation.

And what do you mean by litigation?

Oh, well yeah I don't disagree with you that's happening. At least make it plain so the rest of us know what you're talking about. But yeah, and now that technology has improved, it's easier to do this. I don't know.

I think Im making it very plain. Except that follow the money part. But if you see that has happened and IS happening, how can you act as if its just fine?

Sure they do. If the lady was mistaken on the code, then maybe the government was justified in shutting it down.

Now if you're asking if these things OUGHT to happen in a free country... that's a different thing all together.

Homeless people are denied food in a free country?

Gardens that provide medical (and food) benefits are destroyed in a free country?

Yes or no? No need to play word games with it.

 

[Everythingg]

His proof are the pieces of paper that accredit him and prove his legitimacy. Its not some mystical powers saying that he's a smart guy and he's right. Its higher education that can be replicated and assessed. If you read his words he describes the metrics he used and how he got them. Its all in there. Its not just made up out of thin air. He set a criteria and he based his findings from there. Its documented, can be replicated, and can be scrutinized.

Thats not proof of what he says is right breh

Since you have insight into the process he had, (which would be the proof that you ignored for the statement that his degree is proof enough) why didnt you answer my questions? Maybe you will now?

This has to do with what I told noon. You are putting your faith in this guy telling the truth. Where did he get his stats from? What is he accounting as "violence"? Is he accounting for different type of violence like physical AND violence that comes from economic warfare? Of course, the link has no mention of it. Good thing some commenters caught onto it.

Spoiler

The horrors of the twentieth century could hardly have been predicted in the nineteenth century, which saw the eighteenth century end with the American Revolution bringing about the creation of the first classical liberal government in history. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all history. More than 170 million people were killed by government with 10 million having been killed in World War I and 50 million killed in World War II. Of the 50 million killed in World War II, nearly 70 percent were innocent civilians. (http://www.mises.org/document/2674)

Anything? Or will this be met with more insults?

 

[tmonster]

Reread the post you just quoted. The answer is in there

if you say so

 

[ill]

Thats not proof of what he says is right breh

Since you have insight into the process he had, (which would be the proof that you ignored for the statement that his degree is proof enough) why didnt you answer my questions? Maybe you will now?



Anything? Or will this be met with more insults?

I've addressed numerous of your posts line by line. You've yet to respond with the same courtesy other than doing so on my response to your questions. If you want to disprove what he says, please do. I'll be waiting. You keep posting about the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. I'll keep repeating myself and say that those aren't current times and they just show that I'm right in stating that the past is worse than the current. I've also answered your post on his criteria in a previous post. Its in quotes so just look for that. I won't do your homework for you.

You also can't keep claiming economical warfare as you really don't understand finance and are just going off what you read on the Coli. Economics play themselves out over time either way. Bad economic times leads to more violence. Good economic times leads to more peace. A more peaceful world today is in itself evidence that things are good and not horrible like you think.

 

[Everythingg]

Hitler and Stalin were horrific events in their own regards. They were also in the 20th century and almost antique status by definition. You said modern times. That wasn't modern times. That was my great-grandparents time. Also, 6 million and 20 million are still far less than the 72 million that the Crusades killed (in todays relative numbers). I don't know about you but I don't consider WW2 as "current times". Like I've said, we are in a better time right now and more peaceful. The most recent largest massacre was in 92 in Georgia and 22k were killed. Thats no where near the 6 million in Germany or the 20 million in Russia. And that was 20 years ago. It is a much more peaceful time now than before.

In regards to the Harvard professor, the reason I keep bringing up the stock buying is the same reason that you should believe the Harvard guy at his word. Just because the poster didn't elaborate doesn't mean that he's not correct. If the professor was wrong, lying, biased, etc, it would come out to the public and his theory would be disproved. It hasn't been disproved. That implies its correct. BG doesn't need to explain that to you. It should be common sense for you to understand that.

Where did I say modern times? Can I not speak for myself? I dont think I need you projecting what I meant, or you thought I meant, onto me. Just take me at my word. N

BIAS. Thats all you're displaying here. You dont just correlate the population then to now and say that the former catastrophe is worse than today.
As I asked before, if there was only 10 people on earth and 5 die, are you gonna say that this was a worse catastrophe then the 20-40 million that died under Stalin because of percentages? Terrible way of correlating the disasters. They're both terrible.Both (Im sure) had innocent people die. But the way you're trying to correlate them is dishonest.

Of course when you try to cut off time periods you can make it say what you want. There was a "peaceful" time period between WW1 and WW2 as well. It doesnt matter.

No I should not believe just anyone and anybody at their word. He's a man. He's been wrong. He has biases. He has lied. etc... This is right about EVERY man and woman on earth. So I will not just take his word because he went to harvard. I mean are you seriously suggesting this? This explains to me that atheism is religion in nature. I mean you're doing the EXACT same thing you ridicule christians for doing. It is ridiculous.

 

[Everythingg]

Ignoring something, and giving it "too little" attention are two different things buddy.

I'm not even gonna address this anymore. If you wanna know more about the research in OBEs, read more about the study referred to in the article


and the sources on that wikipage.

Ignore definition-

.
refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

You see that second part? I dont care about OBE's. All Im saying is that they do not pay attention to spiritual matters as much as scientific matters that have no benefits to humanity. Spiritualism, if true, has a lot more benefits towards human advancement then the knowledge of whats on mars right?

If you wanna know about Pinker's sources, then watch the information presented. Don't respond back with " Pshhhh I'm not watchin a 20 min video nikka". It's childish, breh. Dude goes over his entire book and you can see the sources of some of his information and how he ties it together.

You might actually learn something from researching and doing some reading. Reading the bible ISN'T going to prove god to me.

Breh, I responded to the link, guy ignored what I said, then suggested that I watch a 20 minute video That is not how a debate works. If hes watched the vid and corroborated the facts, why cant he answer those simplistic questions I posed? Its the same predicament with you. You said studies said so and so, I ask for the studies, and you provide one that doesnt say what you said it did. I point this out, and Im the bad guy moron that cant logically debate.

I dont care if God is proven for you or not. Well, I do, but then again, without effort its not going to happen. So thats a personal decision. Thinking that ( if God exists) you are His intellectual peer is ridiculoso. But tis the thinking of some atheists I have met and discussed with.

 

[Everythingg]

if you say so

 

[tmonster]

I've addressed numerous of your posts line by line. You've yet to respond with the same courtesy other than doing so on my response to your questions.

his game is short
he gets trapped easily then just proceeds to sidestep the rebuttals
it is what it is

 

[tmonster]

 

[Everythingg]

I've addressed numerous of your posts line by line. You've yet to respond with the same courtesy other than doing so on my response to your questions. If you want to disprove what he says, please do. I'll be waiting. You keep posting about the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. I'll keep repeating myself and say that those aren't current times and they just show that I'm right in stating that the past is worse than the current. I've also answered your post on his criteria in a previous post. Its in quotes so just look for that. I won't do your homework for you.

You also can't keep claiming economical warfare as you really don't understand finance and are just going off what you read on the Coli. Economics play themselves out over time either way. Bad economic times leads to more violence. Good economic times leads to more peace. A more peaceful world today is in itself evidence that things are good and not horrible like you think.

I already did breh.. I posted questions that you could answer if you believe the guy is factually correct. What are you talking about 18th 19th and 20th centuries? When you're the one that was harping on slavery? What Im waiting for is the answer to those questions I posed. You know like how he can equally and credibly equate historical numbers with numbers we have now? What type of violence he was measuring against? Whether he considered economical warfare as violence?

Breh, I've learned some things on the coli, but nothing that I've demonstrated in this thread. Well other than Tmonster who when I first came taught me there was really no rush to answer. Sometimes I rush myself or others to get to an answer.

So a nation that places sanctions on another nation that cause starvation isnt economical warfare? Keep deflecting, friend.