d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Christianity Is Obviously Fake
Prev1228229230231232269Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 17,567
Joined: Mar 13 2009
Gold: 0.00
May 6 2026 10:09pm
In today’s world, if something major happens, almost everyone can pull out a phone and start recording within seconds. But this level of instant video evidence is actually very recent in human history. Even 25 years ago, recording something wasn’t quick or convenient. People needed access to a camcorder, had to set it up, and only then could they start filming. Go back 100 years and video recording was extremely rare. At best, there might be a few black-and-white photographs. For most of human history, people relied on eyewitness accounts, written records, and testimony.

There are many historical figures and events we accept as real even though we never personally saw them. We only have the records left behind, and we choose whether we believe those records are trustworthy.

That involves a degree of faith.

If my siblings tell me something happened to them today, I don’t demand video proof before believing them. If someone warns you about danger ahead, you can either trust their warning or ignore it and learn the hard way yourself. The point is that when people tell us about events or people from the past, belief is often based on trust in testimony and evidence, not direct personal observation.
Member
Posts: 46,807
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
May 6 2026 10:31pm
Its an argument from ignorance "If you cant show who created this blade of grass I am going to assume my magic fairy created it"
Same line of logic as:
"If you can't show me proof that NASA landed people on the moon I will assume lizard people are controlling our government on a flat earth."



Humans didn't invent nature :bonk: what a silly argument. No one is claiming we invented grass. Thats like saying apes didn't make a baby duck therefore it was an elephant.

You have one job to explain how jesus is proof of blade of grass meaning demonstrate how he designed/created it. Not assume from ignorance
Any monkey can say "because my magic sky wizard" the hard part is demonstrating it. Where are your receipts that it was jesus? If you don't have receipts gtfo grifter.

Keep failing


https://imgur.com/YROZBnY.jpeg


who invented it then?
blade of grass is supernatural. 'atheist alternate explanations of monkeys and abiogenesis has failed
(waving blade of grass under your nose)
no explanation by definition makes it supernatural and matches the biblical narrative. ................ everything matches the biblical narrative........'atheists most above all else matches the biblical narrative


When did I say "nothing made by nothing?" Show me receipts.

More made up lies by theists

https://imgur.com/Ca97csu.jpeg

https://imgur.com/iM1ZJzZ.jpeg

https://imgur.com/cTEbQIj.jpeg


when you say nothing you leave yourself open for interpretation. show me your own receipts you dont say nothing

addones counter argument tactic

Member
Posts: 46,807
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
May 6 2026 10:37pm
You may find this interesting. Creation in the Kolbrin scripture has a very profound quote on this. Better than I can word it anyway.

"For who among men can say which came first, the seed or the plant? Yet in truth, it is neither, for something neither seed nor plant preceded both, and that thing was also preceded by something else. Always there are ancestors back to the beginning, and back beyond that, there is only God.
Before the beginning, there was only one consciousness, that of The Eternal One whose nature cannot be expressed in words. It was The One Sole Spirit, The Self Generator, which cannot diminish, The Unknown, Unknowable One brooding solitary in profound pregnant silence.
The name which is uttered cannot be that of this Great Being who, remaining nameless, is the beginning and the end, beyond time, beyond the reach of mortals, and we in our simplicity call it God."

---
So to sum up this quote some of us religious folk call this God right. But to some atheists they focus on the phrase here "brooding solitary in profound pregnant silence" - ie: nothingness.
It relates to the womb too where we did come from nothing into existence. But it also relates to religion where something always proceeds that nothingness. Which can be hard to articulate or get your head around with words so in our simplicity we call that 'God'.
So I would say you are both correct in your answers. Addone understands the concept of nothing. And God represents this nothing concept too.


curious, i never have heard of this stuff

i dont think addone understands the concept of anything much less nothing :)
and i might add he is like that willingly
Member
Posts: 2,645
Joined: Aug 3 2009
Gold: 0.00
May 7 2026 12:06am
The globe spins and its moving around the sun in space what is the problem? Not sure what you mean about the stars rotating. As you can clearly see them at the night's sky.

What do you mean by X axis wouldn't even exist if we were on a globe? Feels like you are throwing terms you don't understand to appear smarter than you really are.

The reason you can see the moon and the sun at the same time on some days is because the moon spins around earth at a different rate to how the earth spins around the sun. Some days you will see it during the day and some days depending the the cycle you will not see the moon at night because it will be completing its rotation on the other side of the globe.

Antarctica can experience 24h sun but only in certain months of the year in certain regions because the way the earth spins relative to the sun.
There are plenty of videos and models demonstrating how it does this. Its not difficult to grasp either. We have people in space taking live footage of earth being a globe and you are performing mental gymnastics over here trying to deny it.

Where is the proof of your so called god that you think is real? So far you have brought copious amount of tinfoil and no proof to back it up.


As far as spin goes which way is it spinning do you think?
Good luck answering that. Seriously try and answer this though if you can. You won't be able to.
The stars rotate both clockwise and anti-clockwise in opposing hemispheres. The globe would need to rotate both ways too in order for this to fit. But the heliocentric model has it rotating a specific way.
And again that's why there are no stars in your fake moon footage or any of the globe models. They can't possibly fit with that model.

It appears you have the same observations as me though.
I mean you are logic enough to know a 24 hr sun is in one hemisphere. That means 24hrs darkness in the opposing hemisphere. The sun can only light up half of a sphere not the other half. So if the suns in the arctic for 24hrs in that hemisphere that would mean the other hemisphere is in complete darkness for 24hrs. Try it with a light and a ball if you can't grasp the words.
That alone doesn't fit with the globe model. That's not what happens.

And seeing the sun and moon in the sky at the same time you see that observation too. This would mean in the other hemisphere there is an absence of photons. Ie: there is no sun and moon on the opposite half of the planet. But that's not what happens in real life. There isn't just an absence of photons like that.

And an X axis means a horizontal plain. That doesn't exist on a globe whatsoever. This goes against all geometry which is real science.

Try fitting geometry, astrology and physics into the globe model and it fails. Miserably. As far as physics goes if you believe in gravity as a downwards force to the center of the sphere that would require things to compress to a point of singularity or infinitely. That is pseudo-science you can't fit the concept of gravity into a globe model either.

The globe model has it's uses sure, but it's definitely not your reality. And I haven't even talked about the curvature nonsense. Remember your observations. Many objects remain visible over distances where the curvature formulas should conceal them. Like a lighthouse for example.
Member
Posts: 16,000
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
May 7 2026 12:40am
who invented it then?
blade of grass is supernatural. 'atheist alternate explanations of monkeys and abiogenesis has failed
(waving blade of grass under your nose)
no explanation by definition makes it supernatural and matches the biblical narrative. ................ everything matches the biblical narrative........'atheists most above all else matches the biblical narrative




when you say nothing you leave yourself open for interpretation. show me your own receipts you dont say nothing

addones counter argument tactic
https://media1.tenor.com/m/vAhL32Mk7T8AAAAC/ear-moving.gif


So you couldn't find the receipts... what a shame pretty sure liars tend to misplace receipts also.
No proof of how jesus is responsible for creating blade of grass only whataboutism by crying how atheists are bad and strawman arguments about monkeys.





Member
Posts: 16,000
Joined: Dec 27 2019
Gold: 69.69
May 7 2026 12:53am
In today’s world, if something major happens, almost everyone can pull out a phone and start recording within seconds. But this level of instant video evidence is actually very recent in human history. Even 25 years ago, recording something wasn’t quick or convenient. People needed access to a camcorder, had to set it up, and only then could they start filming. Go back 100 years and video recording was extremely rare. At best, there might be a few black-and-white photographs. For most of human history, people relied on eyewitness accounts, written records, and testimony.

There are many historical figures and events we accept as real even though we never personally saw them. We only have the records left behind, and we choose whether we believe those records are trustworthy.

That involves a degree of faith.

If my siblings tell me something happened to them today, I don’t demand video proof before believing them. If someone warns you about danger ahead, you can either trust their warning or ignore it and learn the hard way yourself. The point is that when people tell us about events or people from the past, belief is often based on trust in testimony and evidence, not direct personal observation.


If your brother told you he could fly would you believe him? If your mother told you that she was a man would you believe her?
When magic is claimed as history it gets the same treatment. If it cannot be demonstrated or proven then its not history it becomes a fictional fairytale. Stop trying to simp for magic its pathetic.

As far as spin goes which way is it spinning do you think?
Good luck answering that. Seriously try and answer this though if you can. You won't be able to.
The stars rotate both clockwise and anti-clockwise in opposing hemispheres. The globe would need to rotate both ways too in order for this to fit. But the heliocentric model has it rotating a specific way.
And again that's why there are no stars in your fake moon footage or any of the globe models. They can't possibly fit with that model.

It appears you have the same observations as me though.
I mean you are logic enough to know a 24 hr sun is in one hemisphere. That means 24hrs darkness in the opposing hemisphere. The sun can only light up half of a sphere not the other half. So if the suns in the arctic for 24hrs in that hemisphere that would mean the other hemisphere is in complete darkness for 24hrs. Try it with a light and a ball if you can't grasp the words.
That alone doesn't fit with the globe model. That's not what happens.

And seeing the sun and moon in the sky at the same time you see that observation too. This would mean in the other hemisphere there is an absence of photons. Ie: there is no sun and moon on the opposite half of the planet. But that's not what happens in real life. There isn't just an absence of photons like that.

And an X axis means a horizontal plain. That doesn't exist on a globe whatsoever. This goes against all geometry which is real science.

Try fitting geometry, astrology and physics into the globe model and it fails. Miserably. As far as physics goes if you believe in gravity as a downwards force to the center of the sphere that would require things to compress to a point of singularity or infinitely. That is pseudo-science you can't fit the concept of gravity into a globe model either.

The globe model has it's uses sure, but it's definitely not your reality. And I haven't even talked about the curvature nonsense. Remember your observations. Many objects remain visible over distances where the curvature formulas should conceal them. Like a lighthouse for example.


There is a guy who made an entire thread about flat earth and all kinds of tinfoil assertions you can go talk to him about that. Here lets focus on proving so called magic god from the bible. Are you a christian and believe in this god. If so can you start by laying out what you actually believe just so that I don't have to talk past you.

This post was edited by addone on May 7 2026 12:59am
Member
Posts: 46,807
Joined: Sep 5 2016
Gold: 100.00
May 7 2026 01:56am
So you couldn't find the receipts... what a shame pretty sure liars tend to misplace receipts also.
No proof of how jesus is responsible for creating blade of grass only whataboutism by crying how atheists are bad and strawman arguments about monkeys.

https://imgur.com/HHHERxz.jpeg

https://imgur.com/RN2FQAa.jpeg

https://imgur.com/N4Uj9Z0.jpeg

i keep showing you receipts, you keep wiggling your ears
still waving blade of grass right under your nose.

your from a monkey? wasnt that long ago 'atheists were about magical morphing monkeys. what are you about now? o yea its a secret. i bet its a magical secret isnt it?

creationists believe the place. the universe and life is the result of a superior intellect (God). you call a superior intellect magic lol thats dumb

if some people went to another planet and found alien technology they would assume something made the stuff. addone would be like "hahah you believe in magic "

from wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#HeroSection
science calls the stuff machines
if a person believes its a mind behind all this stuff addone will laugh at them and say they believe in magic
Quote
Molecular machines are a class of molecules typically described as an assembly of a discrete number of molecular components intended to produce mechanical movements in response to specific stimuli, mimicking macromolecular devices such as switches and motors. Naturally occurring or biological molecular machines are responsible for vital living processes such as DNA replication and ATP synthesis. Kinesins and ribosomes are examples of molecular machines, and they often take the form of multi-protein complexes. Multiple examples of molecular machinery and their components are found in the Protein Data Bank.[2] For the last several decades, scientists have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to miniaturize machines found in the macroscopic world.

addone says "no proof of a creator"
i am reminded of the perhaps greatest 'atheist of all time. dawkins....... said something to the effect. "its not design, its just the appearance of design"
lol fuken eh huh? can you believe that? ROFL
bacterial flagellum motor


This post was edited by TiStuff on May 7 2026 02:17am
Member
Posts: 2,645
Joined: Aug 3 2009
Gold: 0.00
May 7 2026 06:57am
There is a guy who made an entire thread about flat earth and all kinds of tinfoil assertions you can go talk to him about that. Here lets focus on proving so called magic god from the bible. Are you a christian and believe in this god. If so can you start by laying out what you actually believe just so that I don't have to talk past you.


I'm not sure what my comments have to do with flat earth? That is an another belief system all together. I'm just pointing out that you have a belief system yourself when you talk about the planet too.

And yes I swear upon Almighty God.
In order for my ancestors to migrate to Australia after World War II they had to take an Oath of Allegiance to Almighty God and to the head of the Monarch. This Oath is passed down to heirs, successors and inheritors. Which includes me.
Nowdays in Australia new migrants can take an affirmation rather than an oath, but that wasn't an option for my ancestors.
So I don't have a choice in this matter. I uphold Christian values and traditions as a result. I've also been Baptised, received the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation, received the Blessed Eucharist and I'm Married. These are public declarations of faith.
I understand the concept of God and what it represents for Christians.
If it wasn't for this I wouldn't be alive today.

This post was edited by Insein on May 7 2026 06:59am
Member
Posts: 28,971
Joined: Jun 20 2007
Gold: 34.51
May 7 2026 10:41am
As far as spin goes which way is it spinning do you think?
Good luck answering that. Seriously try and answer this though if you can. You won't be able to.
The stars rotate both clockwise and anti-clockwise in opposing hemispheres. The globe would need to rotate both ways too in order for this to fit. But the heliocentric model has it rotating a specific way.
And again that's why there are no stars in your fake moon footage or any of the globe models. They can't possibly fit with that model.

It appears you have the same observations as me though.
I mean you are logic enough to know a 24 hr sun is in one hemisphere. That means 24hrs darkness in the opposing hemisphere. The sun can only light up half of a sphere not the other half. So if the suns in the arctic for 24hrs in that hemisphere that would mean the other hemisphere is in complete darkness for 24hrs. Try it with a light and a ball if you can't grasp the words.
That alone doesn't fit with the globe model. That's not what happens.

And seeing the sun and moon in the sky at the same time you see that observation too. This would mean in the other hemisphere there is an absence of photons. Ie: there is no sun and moon on the opposite half of the planet. But that's not what happens in real life. There isn't just an absence of photons like that.

And an X axis means a horizontal plain. That doesn't exist on a globe whatsoever. This goes against all geometry which is real science.

Try fitting geometry, astrology and physics into the globe model and it fails. Miserably. As far as physics goes if you believe in gravity as a downwards force to the center of the sphere that would require things to compress to a point of singularity or infinitely. That is pseudo-science you can't fit the concept of gravity into a globe model either.

The globe model has it's uses sure, but it's definitely not your reality. And I haven't even talked about the curvature nonsense. Remember your observations. Many objects remain visible over distances where the curvature formulas should conceal them. Like a lighthouse for example.


Lmao, as a person who lives at the pole essentially this if anything proves exactly that , that the earth is a sphere. I am in 24 hours sunlight currently and Antarctic is in 24 hour darkness, earth is on a sphere on a tilt, hance the light in one and darkness at the other pole and a range of daylight hours in-between. Use your own example and put the ball on a tilt.

What in the world. I think that's enough internet for me today.

This post was edited by SBD on May 7 2026 10:44am
Member
Posts: 19,147
Joined: Nov 12 2005
Gold: 30.70
May 7 2026 10:52am
Lmao, as a person who lives at the pole essentially this if anything proves exactly that , that the earth is a sphere. I am in 24 hours sunlight currently and Antarctic is in 24 hour darkness, earth is on a sphere on a tilt, hance the light in one and darkness at the other pole and a range of daylight hours in-between. Use your own example and put the ball on a tilt.

What in the world. I think that's enough internet for me today.


I'm not really sure what he thinks our Earth's shape is. He said he doesn't believe in Globe or Flat models.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1228229230231232269Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll