thanks for taking the night shift watermark
thanks for taking the night shift watermark
Dix, are you bothered by athiests? Aren't you secure enough in your Jesus worship to not care about those who don't worship your jeesus?
After the scores on the IQ test pass the 120 range it is not a good indicator of how successful a person will be. Before that, it matters a great deal.
Then you should have no problem proving that, Dick.
Isn't it amazing how often you see them post their 'repudiation' of God? They spend inordinate amounts of their personal time and life, researching scriptures, developing their convoluted justifications for denouncing the belief and faith in God. It's a very revealing psychological phenomenon, they are living in abject denial. Because of the denial, they feel compelled to defend themselves, speak out on their views, have you agree with them to feed their codependent behavior. This social reassurance they glean from the masses, is very important to the Atheist, it enables them to cope with the uncertainty of what they are doing.
The one most certainly universal and unforgivable sin is the complete denunciation of God. It kinda doesn't matter what you believe in, to denounce it completely is sort of a big deal. For this reason, many Atheists will hide behind the label of "Agnostic" ...which basically means the same thing as Atheist, only an "Agnostic" is saying, they aren't quite ready to make that leap into complete denunciation of God just yet, they may have a few more questions.
It is my theory, only a very few humans do not believe in anything greater than self. Some "Atheists" are the biggest believers in God. Keep in mind, psychological denial instincts dictate, you have to convince yourself of something before you can ever convince others. Many Atheists have convinced themselves so well, they will never.... See The Light!
You see, one scientifically proven aspect of human behavior, is our profound connection to spirituality. It is our definitive unique quality which makes us humans, and different from our 96% DNA cousin, the chimpanzee. It's the thing that 'evolution theory' can't explain or account for, it defies the principles of Darwin because it's a trait not found in our predecessors anywhere, and it's essential to us being humans, practicing humanity, enabling civilization itself. Where did it come from? What caused this anomaly? From the unearthing of our earliest civilizations, we find evidence of spiritual belief in humans. We have this inclination hard wired into us as humans, there is nothing we can do about it... except, deny it. Some of us do choose to do that, but have you ever noticed how miserable they are? Constantly dissatisfied, frustrated, searching for something, trying to find it through indulgence and promiscuity, self-pleasure. The sad thing is, they will never find the answer there.
The church argued that the proof of heliocentrism from Galileo's telescope was unreliable because the Devil could move the planets to fool the human eye. They also viewed the device as a tool of the Devil and refused to even look throught it.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/aklypin/WebSite/galileo.htm
I don't care if you libtards believe or not. In fact, the more of you in hell, the more room for me in heaven...Funny how important it is to "belivers" that everyone else also belive....
Want a free ride? What are you talking about? You didn't even answer my question.I didn't say or suggest the first.
As to the second, it has to do with the action vs consequence idea.
Liberals are always looking for a free ride.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwx2ce_AyOE
I don't care if you libtards believe or not. In fact, the more of you in hell, the more room for me in heaven...
So your saying this "ambivalent God" doesn't love me?You have a false concept of God. Why would an omnipotent God express the human emotion of "caring" whether or not you "worship" it? Does God have feelings like a human being? You are attempting to apply humanistic criteria to a spiritual force, completely ambivalent to human emotion and need. Granted, many "religious" believers do have faith that this entity "loves" them or has "compassion" for them, but this is simply fallible human perspectives of trying to comprehend something they are compelled to have faith in.
Let me throw you Anti-Christians a bone here to chew on... I said earlier that most Atheists are living in abject denial, but it is also true that a good many Christians live in denial as well. They just happen to mask their denial with the professions of belief in Christianity, and use the Scriptures to support their denial in a different way. Many tenants of religion are mechanisms of denial, and serve to mask what is truly in one's heart and mind.
Exactly!Why would we be condemned then for not believing if he doesn't care?
Uhhh using logic to prove the metaphysical exists makes about as much sense as using faith to explain a ham sandwhich.THE METAPHYSICAL
PLANE EXISTS
...a most logical proof
So how do we know the metaphysical world exists? We can prove it. It is a simple matter to logically establish its existence. We simply use that tried and true logical proof, the Greek syllogism, as the core to establishing our thesis.
Proposition A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound. This is an enormously important statement as it is the foundation of all rational thought and the scientific revolution which emerged out of the so-called Age of Enlightenment in Western Europe some 300 years ago.
The entire corpus of Western scientific research and technology stands on this assumption. Any man or woman of science will immediately nod their head in agreement with this. Without this axiom of material existence, the person of science will tell you, the world would descend back into cesspool of ignorance and superstition such as the Middle Ages. Indeed, it is precisely because of this axiom that science and rational thought was able to lift Western society out of the pig stye of Medieval sorcery, fear, and ignorance.
Proposition B: The human mind exists. To be glib, if the human mind doesn't exist, then what is reading this web page? Here we have a variation of Rene Descartes' famous delineation of subjective idealism, cogito ergo sum, one of the few unchallengeable statements of existence known. Note that the existence of the human mind is a very separate proposition from an assertion that the human mind is being used wisely. I know better than to get into that one. I only state the mind exists.
We are now ready to construct our devastatingly logical syllogism:
A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.
B: The human mind exists.
C: Therefore, the human mind can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.
So here we have our ice-cold logical conclusion, that the human mind is definable by the five senses. Well, since it has been proved logically (and all of us here are logical, correct?) that the mind is definable by the five senses, let's see if we can do it.
Can we define the human mind by touch?
So what does the mind feel like when you rub it between your fingers? Smooth? Rough? Slippery? Hot? Cold? Oh, my, we're trouble with touch.
Can we define the human mind by sound?
I wanna buy the CD and crank it up on the stereo until the neighbours complain. No CD? Oops, we're in trouble again.
Can we define the human mind by sight?
Kewl. Where can I rent the video? Or is this a midnight screening at the local repertory movie house? No can do? This one isn't working, so we are in trouble with seeing the mind.
Can we define the human mind by taste?
I dunno about you, but I've never seen a Mindburger for sale at McDonalds, even at regular price. We're in trouble on this taste thing with the mind.
Can we define the human mind by smell?
"Ah, mon cheri, how I love the sweet smell of Mind Perfume wafting to my eager throbbing nostrils." M-m-m-m-m......I don't think I'll ever get laid with that line. We're in trouble with the smell of mind, too.
In fact we are in very big trouble. Our ice-cold logical syllogism just collapsed around us. We know all things which exist can be defined by the five senses. We know the mind exists. But we are unable to define the mind in terms of any of the five senses. We can show what the mind does, but showing what the mind does, unfortunately, does not define what the mind is. Our logical conclusion, then, becomes illogical, OR, one of our initial two propositions is wrong.
Maybe it's time to look at those two propositions again. No one yet has refuted cogito ergo sum, and it hasn't been for lack of effort by some very skilled mental (ironic isn't it?) activity by highly skilled philosophical and academic personnel. So we know the mind exists.
That leaves us with the logical conclusion that the other proposition is in error, the proposition about defining all existence with the five senses. It seems we have found something which exists which can NOT be defined by the five senses.
So the logical conclusion is that if we have found one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses, then we must conclude there may be more than one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses. Logically, it cannot be proven that there are no other things besides the mind which also exist and also cannot be defined by the five senses. Attempting to logically prove such a negation, in layperson's terms, is a mug's game.
So what we are left with here is that there seem to be two categories of existence:
1. Those things which can be defined by the five senses; and
2. Those things which cannot be defined by the five senses.
Somewhere along the line, long before I was born, these two categories were given names:
1. Physical plane: All things which exist and can be defined in terms of the five senses.
2. Metaphysical plane: All things which exist and cannot be defined in terms of the five senses.
Isn't logic wonderful?
Nah this is pretty much how I am. Some love it, many hate me.Unless you are seriously different in person than online...
Nailed it? It's rhetorical nonsense. She just used logic, very poorly I might add, to prove the unprovable. Am I not the only person here who see's something wrong here? LOLExcellent post, ID! You nailed it!
Proposition A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.
Ah, so is The Grinder going to take up the Relay Stick and continue pressing on in The Pointless Debate?
You'll have to consult with someone more familiar with the particular religion you wish to bash,