well said! they both suck equally funny thing schools serve the same purpose temples (i mean like churches and that kind of shit) did years ago, there was always a fag who was called the teacher, the saint or whatever the fuck you want to call them, they taught pupils what they really had no idea of, their ass was kissed and their balls were licked in hope that they might be accepted by the teacher people think human life and understanding has changed so much over the years, other than a small amount of knowledge obtained and compiled into books by a very small portion of the society, humans are practically the same shit, human life circles around the same type of stupidity it did some 3000 years ago
Uhhh -- not sure if you meant that as a statement of your opinion, but if you did I disagree with it. I see no reason why a god who wanted to be know couldn't present himself in such a way that his existance could be proven scientifically. IMO JB
It would be ridiculous to think we can or should define under what terms a god should be revealing himself or even how he should be conducting his business. That is why I think it is ridiculous in thinking that it can be proved in either direction. One person's proof is another person's "not-so-fast"... We are little less than semi-intelligent viruses as compared to the concept of an eternal, infinite god.
fuck God ... but your answer is really silly too, why the hell do you think God should do as you wish, how is he obliged to prove to you that he exists by ways that only you can accept? He sent prophets who told people that he does exist, now he could care less, he doesn't give a fuck if a worthless human believes in him or not, if they don't he'll just burn them. When you have power no one is going to tell you what to or what not to do, what is and what is not logical, power exceeds all logic and belief.
rc: >It would be ridiculous to think we can or should >define under what terms a god should be revealing >himself or even how he should be conducting his >business. Strawman alert: There's nothing in my statement claiming that he "should" be revealing himself -- in fact, that's why I included the "a god who wanted to be know" qualifier. >One person's proof is another person's "not-so-fast"... Agreed, that's why in my original post on the subject I included the words "to my satisfaction". >We are little less than semi-intelligent viruses >as compared to the concept of an eternal, >infinite god. And with your inclusion of the word "concept" in your sentence, I even completely agree with that. JB
bluud: >fuck God ... but your answer is really silly too, why >the hell do you think God should do as you wish, >how is he obliged to prove to you that he exists by >ways that only you can accept? Here's what's silly -- you not reading what I wrote before responding. Me: >I see no reason why a god who wanted to be >know couldn't present himself in such a way that >his existence could be proven scientifically. I carefully worded my statement to include NO demand NOR expectation. You said it was impossible -- I merely pointed out that if a god wanted to be know, it wouldn't be impossible at all. Read better -- it's a useful skill. JB
no it's pretty clear what you said; he could if he wanted ... ya but saying that specially the way you said it, would also mean that there is no reason to accept him cause he isn't proving himself through science --- your argument is similar to something like this: ben: you know I really hate you tom: some people are just jealous ben: you're silly, I'm not jealous tom: no you're silly cause you didn't listen carefully, I never said you are jealous if ben had taken it literally, then tom was actually changing the subject, and ben should be like; ya I don't really know why some people are just jealous if I were to answer your post like that, I'd say ya sure if there is a God he could do what he wants, so what?, is that something no one already knows
Good point, but maybe God/god needs to be known in an non-scientific manner, The most basic tenet of Judeo-Christianism is that God bestowed upon us the faculty of free will. If God's existence and relationship to us were to be made a scientific certainty our free will would be meaningless; every choice would be a no-brainer -just do whatever the scientifically proven God wants. We'd all be fundamentalist automatons. The way it's set up now ( assuming it was set up ) the element of logical uncertainty makes free will more relevant. Hans (agnostic with deist leanings)
>no it's pretty clear what you said; he could if he >wanted... Yes. >ya but saying that specially the way you said it, >would also mean that there is no reason to accept >him cause he isn't proving himself through science Yes, it would mean that -- that isn't in debate. What IS in debate is you attributing 'obligations and demands' to me -- something I clearly never implied. You(from previous post): >why the hell do you think God should do as you >wish, how is he obliged to prove to you that he >exists by ways that only you can accept? My statement reflects my position -- a god is free to do as he pleases and you claiming something is impossible for him is something I don't understand or agree with. Come back with something that isn't a strawman and we'll discuss. Otherwise my work here is done. JB
yep you are the typical white person, with that bitchy smart ass attitude! nothing to be ashamed of, actually good for you