Bertuzzi Babe Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Yapping? .. you mean like when someone acts like a "Chihuahua for Christ"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 LMAO!! Thank you, Tearloch7!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Sharp's post obviously went right over your head then because plenty of other people knew/know what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It is not possible to disbelieve in the divine, no matter what any "individual" says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 "Yapping on"? I made one post about it and I wasn't the only one....... yet you jumped right in to comment on my post.... trolling members in a thread you weren't even participating in. Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Using logic and reason, I am almost certain there is no God. However it is completely impossible to prove without a doubt their is no God, just as it is impossible to prove that there is. So while Dawkins might be Agnositc (I am as well, I can't be fully certain there really isn't a God), it doesn't mean he can't use logic and reason to provide reasonable evidence that there is no God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I am ever ready with a witty quip to distract your critics .. especially when their context is warped due to having tangled with your esteemed self earlier in their "careers" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 What's your logic and reason to lead you to believe there is no God? First of all, there is extraordinary claim to an extraordinary being. It's called creation itself. You choose not to see it as anything more than a random chance of molecules and protein peptides. It's funny to think about it, even if a miracle were to slap you in the face, I am sure you will accredit some "explainable" reason to the miracle. It's the nature of a skeptic. Sir, what makes it into your definition of "extraordinary" evidence? Do you want God to appear and tell you? Will you truly actually believe in Him? Would it be a humbling and loving belief, or a bitter and disdainful belief? Trust me when God wants the former, and not the latter. Even the devil, who has every shred of evidence to believe in God, does not worship him. God ultimately wants you to worship him. Evidence does not equate to worship. Sure he can appear before you with a glowing stick and a long beard, but what would that accomplish? You would make some excuse that you were hallucinating. What "evidence" would convince you to lovingly worship God? There is evidence for God, you just choose not to see it. In the end, it takes faith to believe. I don't blame you for not believing. It's hard. But once you decide to take a leap of faith, it will make sense. Irrational sense, but sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 You should wonder why the Devil doesn't worship god. Maybe it's because your god is a genocidal maniac with a jealousy complex. Doesn't bode well for us humans. Do you ever consider that today can be your last day because tomorrow god is going to murder every human being again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 God's pretty badass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I'm not here to single you out - I'm just saying if you suspect someone to be a duplicate account, then it's best to seek mod intervention than to post about it in a thread where mods might not be monitoring. As for tearloch, congrats - you've been promoted to the position of "Internet Warrior." Feel free to grab your sword of provocation and your armour of idiocy on your way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Career? What career? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks since 77 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Here's one to ponder. Interesting read. The Birth of Religion We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization. By Charles C. Mann Photograph by Vincent J. Musi Every now and then the dawn of civilization is reenacted on a remote hilltop in southern Turkey. The reenactors are busloads of tourists—usually Turkish, sometimes European. The buses (white, air-conditioned, equipped with televisions) blunder over the winding, indifferently paved road to the ridge and dock like dreadnoughts before a stone portal. Visitors flood out, fumbling with water bottles and MP3 players. Guides call out instructions and explanations. Paying no attention, the visitors straggle up the hill. When they reach the top, their mouths flop open with amazement, making a line of perfect cartoon O's. Before them are dozens of massive stone pillars arranged into a set of rings, one mashed up against the next. Known as Göbekli Tepe (pronounced Guh-behk-LEE TEH-peh), the site is vaguely reminiscent of Stonehenge, except that Göbekli Tepe was built much earlier and is made not from roughly hewn blocks but from cleanly carved limestone pillars splashed with bas-reliefs of animals—a cavalcade of gazelles, snakes, foxes, scorpions, and ferocious wild boars. The assemblage was built some 11,600 years ago, seven millennia before the Great Pyramid of Giza. It contains the oldest known temple. Indeed, Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known example of monumental architecture—the first structure human beings put together that was bigger and more complicated than a hut. When these pillars were erected, so far as we know, nothing of comparable scale existed in the world. At the time of Göbekli Tepe's construction much of the human race lived in small nomadic bands that survived by foraging for plants and hunting wild animals. Construction of the site would have required more people coming together in one place than had likely occurred before. Amazingly, the temple's builders were able to cut, shape, and transport 16-ton stones hundreds of feet despite having no wheels or beasts of burden. The pilgrims who came to Göbekli Tepe lived in a world without writing, metal, or pottery; to those approaching the temple from below, its pillars must have loomed overhead like rigid giants, the animals on the stones shivering in the firelight—emissaries from a spiritual world that the human mind may have only begun to envision. Archaeologists are still excavating Göbekli Tepe and debating its meaning. What they do know is that the site is the most significant in a volley of unexpected findings that have overturned earlier ideas about our species' deep past. Just 20 years ago most researchers believed they knew the time, place, and rough sequence of the Neolithic Revolution—the critical transition that resulted in the birth of agriculture, taking Homo sapiens from scattered groups of hunter-gatherers to farming villages and from there to technologically sophisticated societies with great temples and towers and kings and priests who directed the labor of their subjects and recorded their feats in written form. But in recent years multiple new discoveries, Göbekli Tepe preeminent among them, have begun forcing archaeologists to reconsider. At first the Neolithic Revolution was viewed as a single event—a sudden flash of genius—that occurred in a single location, Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in what is now southern Iraq, then spread to India, Europe, and beyond. Most archaeologists believed this sudden blossoming of civilization was driven largely by environmental changes: a gradual warming as the Ice Age ended that allowed some people to begin cultivating plants and herding animals in abundance. The new research suggests that the "revolution" was actually carried out by many hands across a huge area and over thousands of years. And it may have been driven not by the environment but by something else entirely. After a moment of stunned quiet, tourists at the site busily snap pictures with cameras and cell phones. Eleven millennia ago nobody had digital imaging equipment, of course. Yet things have changed less than one might think. Most of the world's great religious centers, past and present, have been destinations for pilgrimages—think of the Vatican, Mecca, Jerusalem, Bodh Gaya (where Buddha was enlightened), or Cahokia (the enormous Native American complex near St. Louis). They are monuments for spiritual travelers, who often came great distances, to gawk at and be stirred by. Göbekli Tepe may be the first of all of them, the beginning of a pattern. What it suggests, at least to the archaeologists working there, is that the human sense of the sacred—and the human love of a good spectacle—may have given rise to civilization itself. More at http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 So, this is now the God Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Thank you, you angry self-deluded little man .. I was an "Internet Warrior" back when a Commodore 64 was considered cool .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 So, this is now the God Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 17, 2012 Author Share Posted August 17, 2012 First of all, there is extraordinary claim to an extraordinary being. It's called creation itself. You choose not to see it as anything more than a random chance of molecules and protein peptides. It's funny to think about it, even if a miracle were to slap you in the face, I am sure you will accredit some "explainable" reason to the miracle. It's the nature of a skeptic. Sir, what makes it into your definition of "extraordinary" evidence? Do you want God to appear and tell you? Will you truly actually believe in Him? Would it be a humbling and loving belief, or a bitter and disdainful belief? Trust me when God wants the former, and not the latter. Even the devil, who has every shred of evidence to believe in God, does not worship him. God ultimately wants you to worship him. Evidence does not equate to worship. Sure he can appear before you with a glowing stick and a long beard, but what would that accomplish? You would make some excuse that you were hallucinating. What "evidence" would convince you to lovingly worship God? There is evidence for God, you just choose not to see it. In the end, it takes faith to believe. I don't blame you for not believing. It's hard. But once you decide to take a leap of faith, it will make sense. Irrational sense, but sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It seems like Sharpshooter wouldn't worship God even if he had the proof of Him. That intention sounds more anti-theist/miso-theist to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 So, this is now the God Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 It seems like Sharpshooter wouldn't worship God even if he had the proof of Him. That intention sounds more anti-theist/miso-theist to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.