the real problem is they want (need) their gawd so much they are willing to twist logic and l@@k stupid in attempt to support the notion. (l@@k to dark for a good example of this):-/
thanks Pussy Cat for a moment I thought they may try a more serious debate in line with the thread I'm crushed.....just like the darkone said I would be hmm.... perhaps..is there cud there really....... just in case... I'm gonna cross myself each time I trade in future
If I started this thread (which I did), can I stop it? If so, tell me how. Should I begin a new one on POLITICS so we can get away from RELIGION? These argument can go on forever, and if any of you think you will prove your point, well then you will have accomplished what has never been done. Or at least in our limited time as humans on this particular planet. Or, as far as we BELIEVE has been our time on this particular planet. 4 Billion Years...that's a long time. Maybe the past 100,000, or 10 million years is just our collective "Ground Hog Day". Maybe we (or some species) evolved, destroyed themselves (ourselves), re-evolved, etc., etc.... Bottom line...we don't know, we can't know, and does it matter? If we did know, would it help us to love better? live better? live longer? cause us to live in peace and harmony? trade stocks better? So....who wants to see Jesse Ventura throw his hat back in the ring? What should we do about Iraq? Where is that f##k UBL? What is the fed's next move? Is Alan Greenspan really the guy with the big switch? :eek:
monty python's 'life of brian" gives insight into the birth of messiahs (they are borne in men's minds). don't ya just love it when attempting to evade the law brian jumps up on a ledge and begins preaching the 'holy" word. lol. then as he runs away he breaks his sandal and begins to hop on one foot (hot sand). well, at this point he has amassed quite a nice flock of followers who see the 'truth' in his word. they also begin to hop on one foot in deference to their new found gawd. (and they have been hopping ever since)LOLOLOL! and isn't it irrational to write this 'complexity' off to something even more complex, a gwad? (dark makes his mistake here). i ask you what does that solve? a mere empty substitution imo. think about it, what could be more complex than an omnipotent being? but there must be some entity that is more complex because 'it' had to make this ominpotent being that is supposedly the 'epitome' of oder & complexity. don't you see this argument for a gawd is nothing more than a tautology, a logical dilemma for which the believers could never escape, and WILL NEVER! :-/
pussycat's god is apparently the 'rational' -- that is, that which makes sense to him. is anything outside that box impossible?
'reason', chas, is not *my* invention but a very effective tool for producing 'reliable' knowledge. (try using it sometime.) anything outside that box is not impossible, BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSESS!! do (can) you see the diff?? :-/