Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
well that two false assumptions in two posts first you assume that any one who ever did drugs is an addict then you reinforce that ignorance by calling them druggies. the only addiction I see here is yours.your lack of a sense of humor shines!Well, drug use explains quite alot. I sincerely hope you have recovered from such addictions. If not, we will be more than happy to help you in any way we can.
I dont think it good to laugh at druggies. They need help and sympathy. Not to be mocked.
I have no problem laughing when something is actually funny. Good humor is hard to come by these days.
(cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneousI suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
I read bitterness and apostacy.
People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe. He knows God does not exist. He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system. And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
quite.
Because the God of Mormonism is illogical. He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in? By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being. He tells us why.
As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
(cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneousquite.
Because the God of Mormonism is illogical. He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in? By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being. He tells us why.
As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states(cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneousThat is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being. He tells us why.
As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him. That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
Who......are you to make such a claim ?
do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states(cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneous
I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him. That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
Who......are you to make such a claim ?
4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
such as mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
most of it in the U.S.A.
Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
It's my right to make these claims.
I didn't know I needed permission from your sky god to ask them.
there is no need to question all of them, nice dodge though.do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or statesI would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him. That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
Who......are you to make such a claim ?
4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
such as mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
most of it in the U.S.A.
Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
It's my right to make these claims.
I didn't know I needed permission from your sky god to ask them.
All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton. Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them. Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists. It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass. And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it. As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence. Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way. But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
Hey, Daws, I admire your ability to following Listening into his strange Mormon bunny holes where you have to be able to absolutely prove that ridiculous things are false.
Obviously, he has no idea how evidence works. Or how proof works.
He's the one making impossible claims. If you make impossible claims, you should back them up with evidence.
there is no need to question all of them, nice dodge though.do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
such as mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
most of it in the U.S.A.
Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
It's my right to make these claims.
I didn't know I needed permission from your sky god to ask them.
All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton. Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them. Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists. It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass. And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it. As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence. Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way. But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
the laws of probability are in my favor.
yes I understand that very narrow defintion of faith and it is completely subjective.
on the other hand this definition: firm belief in something for which there is no proof is in context and is far more accurate and objective.
please explain this statement specifically: "As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself."
what did I not ask for?
do you mean "giving my self to christ'? if that's the case, it was all done long before I had any say in the matter.
how am I being an ass?
from my pov I'm pointing up the major flaws in your belief system, if you or it cannot endure a little hard scrutiny, then maybe you might want to rethink your belife.
if that makes me an ass ,than I'm an ass.
"gods hand" is a poetic but highly inaccurate description of the mechanism of life.
It also infers a condition or action that can't be quantified.
it also breaks one of the basic rules of science, objectivity .
Listening's Holy Book..
Listening's Holy Book..
So, tell me Joe;
What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
Listening's Holy Book..
So, tell me Joe;
What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
So, tell me Joe;
What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
I have never been a fan of ol' Mark. He is way overrated.
In this case, the use of the word "understand" on his part and yours is to be questioned.
As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
I have never been a fan of ol' Mark. He is way overrated.
In this case, the use of the word "understand" on his part and yours is to be questioned.
Mark Twain is the greatest writer in American history. The fact you don't realize this is probably due to the fact he said some truly cutting things about your whackadoodle cult.
(He dedicates three chapters in one of his books, "Roughing it" to ripping on the Mormons. Awesome.)
I think what he has to say about religion in general is spot on.
God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyl and Hyde of sacred romance.
- Notebook, 1904
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is -- in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree -- it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime -- the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."
Reflections on Religion
He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.
He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.
A. So is Jesus.
B. So is Karl Marx.
C. What is your point ?
D. Don't bother to answer C. I know the answer....you don't have one.
He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.
A. So is Jesus.
B. So is Karl Marx.
C. What is your point ?
D. Don't bother to answer C. I know the answer....you don't have one.
an absolute claim ? it's not a claim, it's a fact: "there is no quantifiable proof that god exists."there is no need to question all of them, nice dodge though.All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton. Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them. Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists. It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass. And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it. As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence. Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way. But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
the laws of probability are in my favor.
yes I understand that very narrow defintion of faith and it is completely subjective.
on the other hand this definition: firm belief in something for which there is no proof is in context and is far more accurate and objective.
please explain this statement specifically: "As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself."
what did I not ask for?
do you mean "giving my self to christ'? if that's the case, it was all done long before I had any say in the matter.
how am I being an ass?
from my pov I'm pointing up the major flaws in your belief system, if you or it cannot endure a little hard scrutiny, then maybe you might want to rethink your belife.
if that makes me an ass ,than I'm an ass.
"gods hand" is a poetic but highly inaccurate description of the mechanism of life.
It also infers a condition or action that can't be quantified.
it also breaks one of the basic rules of science, objectivity .
Then you would more accurately say, there is a high probability there is no God. An absolute claim is not warrented.
"Major Flaws" ??? ROTF
Against what standard ? Or in other words..."Who died and left you in charge ?". I have no problem with scrutiny that is honest. Yours is simply built around a foregone conclusion and why I even respond to you is beyond me.
As I indicated, you petty little statement about how others see the world is just more of a contradiction against what you claim to be.
