I finally understand now. Humans are so intelligent that they can rationalize reasons for God not existing. Keep in mind, these are the same humans that dump toxic waste into their own fresh water supply, claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, dispute the Holocaust even existed, and commonly fail to wipe their ass properly and leave long trails of shit in their underwear, BUT, they can easily explain away God as if they were telling an 8 year old Santa Claus is really mommy and daddy.
I bow to your superhuman knowledge. Now that you've taught us that, why don't you all go do something constructive like curing all the forms of cancer and dazzle us with your brilliance on a meaningful level.
I finally understand now. Humans are so intelligent that they can rationalize reasons for God not existing. Keep in mind, these are the same humans that dump toxic waste into their own fresh water supply, claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, dispute the Holocaust even existed, and commonly fail to wipe their ass properly and leave long trails of shit in their underwear, BUT, they can easily explain away God as if they were telling an 8 year old Santa Claus is really mommy and daddy.
I bow to your superhuman knowledge. Now that you've taught us that, why don't you all go do something constructive like curing all the forms of cancer and dazzle us with your brilliance on a meaningful level.
This thread and the ideas in it = boredom
• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.
• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.
don't you mean God's nonexistence?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
To paraphrase, you said "the humans that dump toxic waste, leave shit streaks on their undergarments, dispute the historicity of the holocaust and claim to have seen the loch ness monster, are the same humans that explain away God's existence."
Perhaps what you meant to say was "these are members of the same species that also has members who claim..."
Should we return to logical fallacies, the argumentum ad populum. The fallacy that draws conclusions from the majority?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
He had it right the first time....according to your theory.
i stand corrected.
do you reckon tis the same thing trying to explain the existence of something as it is trying to explain the nonexistence of something? are the same thought processes involved you reckon?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
do you reckon tis the same thing trying to explain the existence of something as it is trying to explain the nonexistence of something? are the same thought processes involved you reckon?
My contention is that positive claims require positive evidence. Certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor is it evidence of existence. Therefor existence can only be substantiated by evidence and absence cannot be substantiated by anything and burden of proof is on positive claims.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
do you reckon tis the same thing trying to explain the existence of something as it is trying to explain the nonexistence of something? are the same thought processes involved you reckon?
Awesome redneck impersonation. I am now further unimpressed with you.
To paraphrase, you said "the humans that dump toxic waste, leave shit streaks on their undergarments, dispute the historicity of the holocaust and claim to have seen the loch ness monster, are the same humans that explain away God's existence."
Perhaps what you meant to say was "these are members of the same species that also has members who claim..."
Should we return to logical fallacies, the argumentum ad populum. The fallacy that draws conclusions from the majority?
Your vocabulary apparently knows no bounds. Pity you waste your wealth of knowledge to an audience of 14 people on a fucking message board.
Your vocabulary apparently knows no bounds. Pity you waste your wealth of knowledge to an audience of 14 people on a fucking message board.
It's a reciprocal venue. Much of what I've learned has been from interacting with this audience.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Awesome redneck impersonation. I am now further unimpressed with you.
WHAT?!
are you familiar with pascal? are familiar with his contention that one can not approach the existence and a belief of God the same way in which scientific conclusions are approached. this is what i was getting at. this is why i asked the questions i did. not because im some uneducated dullard. next time you take offense at something, have the commonsense to ask for clarification, don't assume someone is having a go at you just because they do not share your views. and especially not when theyve just acknowledged you politely for correcting them.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
are you familiar with pascal? are familiar with his contention that one can not approach the existence and a belief of God the same way in which scientific conclusions are approached. this is what i was getting at. this is why i asked the questions i did. not because im some uneducated dullard. next time you take offense at something, have the commonsense to ask for clarification, don't assume someone is having a go at you just because they do not share your views. and especially not when theyve just acknowledged you politely for correcting them.
I think he was only taking aim at the style in which you gave your post, not about the content within.
i agree jeanie. so many times ive identified myself as a cookie monster.
cookies are not sometimes food. they are ALWAYS food.
Well as you know, Elmo is the man for me.
But I can't fault Cookie Monster's cookie philosophy either.
Really I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe in. God, Jesus, Cookie Monster, The Tooth Fairy.
Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Obviously to most of the world's population he does in some form or another. I really don't see the point to getting adamant about it, unless someone's point of view is being shoved down my throat, or I'm belittled for holding the view I hold. To each his own I say.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
so good to see that LSD is working for you fins.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I used to see him around, jogging. Fuck, he was tall. He wasn't God though. Except in the Nietzschean sense, because he's dead.
Haven't done it for ten years. Don't need to. I took too much of the fakker.
we're all dead fins, we just haven't realised it yet.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Speak for yourself.
I bow to your superhuman knowledge. Now that you've taught us that, why don't you all go do something constructive like curing all the forms of cancer and dazzle us with your brilliance on a meaningful level.
This thread and the ideas in it = boredom
Why would you start was has no end?
• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.
You're not the only person on earth Your Heiness.
Why would you start was has no end?
don't you mean God's nonexistence?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
He had it right the first time....according to your theory.
Why would you start was has no end?
You said "these are the same humans"
To paraphrase, you said "the humans that dump toxic waste, leave shit streaks on their undergarments, dispute the historicity of the holocaust and claim to have seen the loch ness monster, are the same humans that explain away God's existence."
Perhaps what you meant to say was "these are members of the same species that also has members who claim..."
Should we return to logical fallacies, the argumentum ad populum. The fallacy that draws conclusions from the majority?
i stand corrected.
do you reckon tis the same thing trying to explain the existence of something as it is trying to explain the nonexistence of something? are the same thought processes involved you reckon?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
My contention is that positive claims require positive evidence. Certainly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor is it evidence of existence. Therefor existence can only be substantiated by evidence and absence cannot be substantiated by anything and burden of proof is on positive claims.
Awesome redneck impersonation. I am now further unimpressed with you.
Why would you start was has no end?
Your vocabulary apparently knows no bounds. Pity you waste your wealth of knowledge to an audience of 14 people on a fucking message board.
Why would you start was has no end?
It's a reciprocal venue. Much of what I've learned has been from interacting with this audience.
why? ...because I say so...and it's in the @#$% book!...(of course)
http://www.shoutfile.com/v/6Ru0fdxV/Checkmate_Atheists
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
WHAT?!
are you familiar with pascal? are familiar with his contention that one can not approach the existence and a belief of God the same way in which scientific conclusions are approached. this is what i was getting at. this is why i asked the questions i did. not because im some uneducated dullard. next time you take offense at something, have the commonsense to ask for clarification, don't assume someone is having a go at you just because they do not share your views. and especially not when theyve just acknowledged you politely for correcting them.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think he was only taking aim at the style in which you gave your post, not about the content within.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
pfft whatever. :rolleyes: so instead of asking for clarification he insults me?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Maybe he simply didn't understand what you were trying to explain. Probably didn't even care.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
probably not. (the caring that is, not the understanding.)
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you think you can.
i guess that's all that matters, no?
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
God is a mathematical certainty.
That's explanation enough, if you ever bother to figure it out.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
hehehe, that was pretty funny.
Well as you know, Elmo is the man for me.
But I can't fault Cookie Monster's cookie philosophy either.
Really I have no problem with people believing in what they want to believe in. God, Jesus, Cookie Monster, The Tooth Fairy.
Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Obviously to most of the world's population he does in some form or another. I really don't see the point to getting adamant about it, unless someone's point of view is being shoved down my throat, or I'm belittled for holding the view I hold. To each his own I say.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/38546
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")