Here is the question atheists can't answer...

"Executive evaluations" are reports on the performance of employees, Divine! Just how much experience do you have within corporate structures? Mine is over fifty years as having worked with them, both great minds as well as mental midgets.
Because I am too old to run, and my genius unknown in the political arena, and to prevent Lady Macbeth, and her parasitic party, from taking the job, I *do* intend to vote for the Trumper.
Most are just an inner circle circle jerk. ;)

Nonetheless bean-counters don't put a value on loyalty (which is a two-way street, BTW), morale and leadership. Those oh-so-awesome Executive Evaluations you keep pushing are mostly geared towards executives who are best able to squeeze blood from rocks.

In the 1960s, IBM and Kodak were large successful firms which demanded loyalty from employees and gave it in return. Having a job there meant a job for life. In the 1970s, once executives started being paid in stock options and they learned they could raise the price of stock by canning people, that idea changed.
 
Your points make no sense to me, Devine;....
No worries. A person who doesn't know how to spell can't be expected to understand much. Have a really nice day, Saul.
fedora.gif
what is spelled wrong?
Look real hard, think about it, a nods as good as a wink to a blind bat...
Goodbye Devine!
 
Joseph Smith's Mormonism did more evolving in 50 years than Antone Lavey's Church of Satan. Not all religions are started by geniuses. Those are the ones that fade away.

Marshall Applewhite's little religion known as Heaven's Gate won't even reach the status of mythology. Not all religions were created by equally competent men. I wouldn't even be surprised if you didn't know who Marshall Applewhite was.
Like different forms of martial arts, religions are simply tools toward an end. In martial arts, the goal is self-defense. In religion, it's spiritual awakeness. If a religious person isn't seeking that goal, if they are the religious equivalent of "Cobra Kai", then they are on the wrong path.
Joseph Smith's Mormonism did more evolving in 50 years than Antone Lavey's Church of Satan. Not all religions are started by geniuses. Those are the ones that fade away.
What religion had been started by a genius, Devine? What *is* a genius?

I'd say a guy with a 4th grade education that writes a book that evolves into a multi-billion dollar empire is pretty much a genius. I'd say a 32 year old Jewish carpenter that converts 2/7 of the world's population and has wiggled his way into 4 out of 5 of the major world religions is pretty much a genius. I'd say an 80 year old sheep herder that creates a nation smaller than New Jersey that has been hated for thousands of years yet somehow survived being scattered all over the world for 17 centuries yet reunited to become a major player in world politics was probably a genius. I'd say an illiterate pedophile that memorizes a 700 page document that motivates millions of people to seek world domination was probably a freaking genius. Do you have any alternate examples of geniuses?
It doesn't take genius to know that men marrying very young girls was very common up to the 20th century in the USA...The legal age of consent and marriage was 10 in most US states, up to the year when women got the vote....
"Genius" is relative to genes; the word is misused in most cases. Creative people have benefited civilization tremendously, but they're not geniuses; me as an example.
As for Jesus, he had not made himself famous, people who spoke and wrote of him many years after his alleged existence and death had spread the word, and world conditions over the centuries provided converts, as well as conquest and domination.
Because of the layout of this site, I find it difficult to follow who I speak with, and what the topic is, specifically. If that illiterate pedophile was Muhammad, didn't he *dictate* that 700 page document as his scribes read the Jew's book to him?
As for him being a pedophile, what's the point?
And, what on earth are we talking about here that makes it worth this exchange?
 
"Executive evaluations" are reports on the performance of employees, Divine! Just how much experience do you have within corporate structures? Mine is over fifty years as having worked with them, both great minds as well as mental midgets.
Because I am too old to run, and my genius unknown in the political arena, and to prevent Lady Macbeth, and her parasitic party, from taking the job, I *do* intend to vote for the Trumper.
Most are just an inner circle circle jerk. ;)

Nonetheless bean-counters don't put a value on loyalty (which is a two-way street, BTW), morale and leadership. Those oh-so-awesome Executive Evaluations you keep pushing are mostly geared towards executives who are best able to squeeze blood from rocks.

In the 1960s, IBM and Kodak were large successful firms which demanded loyalty from employees and gave it in return. Having a job there meant a job for life. In the 1970s, once executives started being paid in stock options and they learned they could raise the price of stock by canning people, that idea changed.
You have not given me a basis on which to place any insight to business on your part, and all that you speak of. You remind me of Trump and his wild accusations, and exaggerations without basis.
 
Goodbye Devine!
You have not given me a basis on which to place any insight to business on your part, and all that you speak of. You remind me of Trump and his wild accusations, and exaggerations without basis.
That was a very short goodbye. Are you a liar or did you miss me?

As for your accusation, scroll up. I mentioned it in several posts.
 
Goodbye Devine!
You have not given me a basis on which to place any insight to business on your part, and all that you speak of. You remind me of Trump and his wild accusations, and exaggerations without basis.
That was a very short goodbye. Are you a liar or did you miss me?

As for your accusation, scroll up. I mentioned it in several posts.

They've been saying, "Jesus Is Coming Soon" for 2000 years.

Just when will he get here? LMAO!!!
 
Joseph Smith's Mormonism did more evolving in 50 years than Antone Lavey's Church of Satan. Not all religions are started by geniuses. Those are the ones that fade away.

Marshall Applewhite's little religion known as Heaven's Gate won't even reach the status of mythology. Not all religions were created by equally competent men. I wouldn't even be surprised if you didn't know who Marshall Applewhite was.
Like different forms of martial arts, religions are simply tools toward an end. In martial arts, the goal is self-defense. In religion, it's spiritual awakeness. If a religious person isn't seeking that goal, if they are the religious equivalent of "Cobra Kai", then they are on the wrong path.
Joseph Smith's Mormonism did more evolving in 50 years than Antone Lavey's Church of Satan. Not all religions are started by geniuses. Those are the ones that fade away.
What religion had been started by a genius, Devine? What *is* a genius?

I'd say a guy with a 4th grade education that writes a book that evolves into a multi-billion dollar empire is pretty much a genius. I'd say a 32 year old Jewish carpenter that converts 2/7 of the world's population and has wiggled his way into 4 out of 5 of the major world religions is pretty much a genius. I'd say an 80 year old sheep herder that creates a nation smaller than New Jersey that has been hated for thousands of years yet somehow survived being scattered all over the world for 17 centuries yet reunited to become a major player in world politics was probably a genius. I'd say an illiterate pedophile that memorizes a 700 page document that motivates millions of people to seek world domination was probably a freaking genius. Do you have any alternate examples of geniuses?
It doesn't take genius to know that men marrying very young girls was very common up to the 20th century in the USA...The legal age of consent and marriage was 10 in most US states, up to the year when women got the vote....
"Genius" is relative to genes; the word is misused in most cases. Creative people have benefited civilization tremendously, but they're not geniuses; me as an example.
As for Jesus, he had not made himself famous, people who spoke and wrote of him many years after his alleged existence and death had spread the word, and world conditions over the centuries provided converts, as well as conquest and domination.
Because of the layout of this site, I find it difficult to follow who I speak with, and what the topic is, specifically. If that illiterate pedophile was Muhammad, didn't he *dictate* that 700 page document as his scribes read the Jew's book to him?
As for him being a pedophile, what's the point?
And, what on earth are we talking about here that makes it worth this exchange?
Don't mistake confusion for the desire to split hairs...
 
Goodbye Devine!
You have not given me a basis on which to place any insight to business on your part, and all that you speak of. You remind me of Trump and his wild accusations, and exaggerations without basis.
That was a very short goodbye. Are you a liar or did you miss me?

As for your accusation, scroll up. I mentioned it in several posts.

They've been saying, "Jesus Is Coming Soon" for 2000 years.

Just when will he get here? LMAO!!!
I just saw a movie trailer that proclaims that his delay is due to engine problems.....Having a hard time getting parts....
 
Goodbye Devine!
You have not given me a basis on which to place any insight to business on your part, and all that you speak of. You remind me of Trump and his wild accusations, and exaggerations without basis.
That was a very short goodbye. Are you a liar or did you miss me?

As for your accusation, scroll up. I mentioned it in several posts.

They've been saying, "Jesus Is Coming Soon" for 2000 years.

Just when will he get here? LMAO!!!
I just saw a movie trailer that proclaims that his delay is due to engine problems.....Having a hard time getting parts....

LOL!

I guess that cloud he's riding ended up in Egypt.
 
Just not stupid enough to believe a 2000 year old fairy tale.
Disagreed. It's one thing to be skeptical of 2000 year old stories, but you're self-conscious and feel the need to ridicule others to make yourself feel better.

It's one thing to say "I only believe what I see, taste, smell, hear or feel" but it's another to ridicule others for wondering if there is more to it, to question what happened before the Big Bang or to wonder if there is something beyond the Universe.
 
Everything that comprises the physical components that make us human, are also a part of what is within the stars. When a star goes supernova, it spreads these properties into the vastness of space and onto surfaces. We are the stuff of stardust (oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, et cetera).
Science: A philosophy of curiosity, study, testing and discovery.
Creationism: A philosophy of ignorance.
 
...
Science: A philosophy of curiosity, study, testing and discovery.
Creationism: A philosophy of ignorance.
I agree here. My belief is that the all-powerful entity that created the Universe did so with set rules which govern how this universe works. The study of these rules is not only the goal of science, but, IMHO, a study of the divine.
 
...
Science: A philosophy of curiosity, study, testing and discovery.
Creationism: A philosophy of ignorance.
I agree here. My belief is that the all-powerful entity that created the Universe did so with set rules which govern how this universe works. The study of these rules is not only the goal of science, but, IMHO, a study of the divine.
There remains no empirical evidence for the existence of any deity or deities.
As you were born into a family/community that believes in your particular deity, there has been over a thousand deities in thousands of religions. Your belief in yours makes you an atheist regarding the belief in others deities. We atheists just go one deity further and reject that one also.
 
God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

— Lactantius, De Ira Deorum
 

Forum List

Back
Top