It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genesis’ Young Earth, Stars, Michael J. Fox and the DeLorean…“All Aboard!”

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Oldthinker just strikes me as naive and alittle unfortunate, I don't mind talking to much. It's not like he's going to beat me in an argument, he'll just throw out speculation like "You may not believe in God but he believes in you" or something - doesn't bother me too much.

Although I'm not a fan of the patronising.



Also I sent you a u2u and haven't heard back.




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Sparing my children the awful fear of Nothingness would be a huge accomplishment. Early signs indicate belief is in their genes; taking no chances, I generally keep my trap shut on the topic. I'm the atheist who wants my kids to go to Heaven. Or at least believe they're going to.


Oblivion is daunting at first but you get over it like anything else. Believer and non alike cannot be certain of what death will be like so in the end we all have a drive to survive - it's instinct. Assuming there is no afterlife, I did not exist for 13.7 billion years before I was born and I didn't seem to mind it, so I shouldn't be so afraid of not existing once again.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



sauce, huh?
enjoy!

Here's another:


Learning the things of the spirit dramatically changed my attitude and my outlook on life. It wasn't that the information available to me had changed, but that my perception had changed and as a result, I was changed. I was dead, but Christ woke me up! He saved me from my selfish self and I have given myself to Him because I am thankful for that which He has given me and hopeful for that which He has promised.


the atheist/scientist's story here: www.ex-atheist.com...

His other thoughts, maybe SCIENCE would do it?

I graduated from college with high honors and my prized science degree, but I had lost any motivation to apply that knowledge. I recalled staring at a swarming mass of termites one sunny day, thinking that, from a comparative distance, there was little difference between them and us. I smashed a few dozen with my shoe and ground them into the dirt. What did it matter if these died? What did it matter if they all died? People died every day. The end result would always be death for both the individuals and, eventually, the species.

Humanity had become nothing more to me than an organized network of molecules and enzymes. I viewed people as mere organisms going through their daily routines of metabolizing nutrients and expelling wastes, ovulating their eggs and ejaculating their semen. I knew the psychology of humans almost as well as their anatomies. The hidden things that pulled them this way and that were very evident to me. They were like guinea pigs, only more predictable, and my chief form of entertainment was to see how skillfully I could manipulate them. I knew that I was supposed to care about them, but I didn't. I couldn't. If mankind's goal was to alleviate its own suffering, a bullet to the head was more efficient and made more sense in my thinking than screwing around with medication or disease control.

What was the point of prolonging any one life? What difference did it make if a girl didn't live to marry or her mother live to see it? Of what value were temporary emotional experiences? They were simply the biochemistry of the brain reacting to sensory input and, upon that individual's death, any remaining memory of that experience would be thrown away along with the person who had experienced it. My extreme point of view had reduced people into throwaway metabolic units; I had become as cold and indifferent as the logic that I exalted.



maybe "philosophy?


Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong?

I turned to philosophy. I started with Jean-Paul Sartre's "Being and Nothingness". This man had won a Nobel Prize for basically taking white and logically demonstrating how it was really black. I tried several other atheist philosophers who tried to assign meaning to a life created by chance and I decided that they were all full of crap. If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise.



Old OT thinks he can learn something here...you? Doubt it....that's OK


btw, it annoying that you two talk about me...and not to me...very disrespectful there my young friends....



spelling
man "m" must be right

[edit on 28-7-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 



And yet another for you....if you are up to it now....



Link: www.biola.edu...



Atheist Becomes Theist
Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew


Dear Friends:
The following is an exclusive interview that will be published in the Winter 2004 issue of “Philosophia Christi” the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (www.biola.edu/philchristi). “Philosophia Christi” is one of the top circulating philosophy of religion journals in the world and we are pleased to offer up the definitive interview on this breaking story of global interest.

Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism.

The interviewer is Dr. Gary Habermas, a prolific philosopher and historian from Liberty University who has debated Flew several times. They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God.



Surely, you seen Flew's footprint?

OT



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Science had done nothing to answer the questions that raged in my head. Why should I care? How much should I care? Should I care at all? What is my purpose in life? Is there a purpose? How can I love people? Should I love people? Which people should I love? How can I forgive people? Should I forgive people? Have I done what is right? Have I done what is wrong? Is there a right or a wrong?


Well if Christianity answered these questions then good for him, this does not concern me so much. Frankly, I don't think these questions have answers, not do I think they need answers - I'm not driven to find an answer because there aren't answers.

I appreciate being no more than the sum of my biology, I am also a transhumanist because I understand that there is nothing sacred about our bodies or their current forms. One of my most favourite quotes is this.

"Homo sapiens, the first truly free species, is about to decommission natural selection, the force that made us.... Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become."

- Edward O. Wilson


You have to understand that I cannot be a Christian again, if I could I would probably. I know there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a messiah when the stories are easier explained as another echo of a solar deity like Chrisna, Horus, Mirthas, Zoroaster, Dionysus and on and on.
Simply "feeling" the presence of what people call Jesus or god or what have you isn't enough because it disappeared when I stopped believing meaning it was most likely a sign of a faith feed back loop.

A godless universe is an easier one to understand and believe, it requires the least amount of assumptions - Occam's Razor.

However I appreciate the thought.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


G, have you seen evidence out there to support....

-the sun came BEFORE vegetation?



There were creatures with eyes before there were plants.
Why have eyes if it's always dark?

I take nothing from the bible literally and do not believe in a zombie, retributive god (norr any, for that matter).



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


And a responder questions the credibility of those , who he sees as "science debunkers" it is my responsibility to inform him that some scientist (of old) believed and honored the scriptures...and many do today...


What people used to believe is unimportant. People used to believe that the Earth was flat, we knew better 2300 years ago. Aristotle made some keen observations, then did some clever math and calculated the size of the earth with remarkable accuracy - only out by a few percentiles. So conclusive was this discovery that no one in academia believed in a flat Earth since that time.



etymology
1398, from Gk. etymologia, from etymon "true sense" (neut. of etymos "true," related to eteos "true") + logos "word." In classical times, of meanings; later, of histories. Latinized by Cicero as veriloquium.



history
1390, "relation of incidents" (true or false), from O.Fr. historie, from L. historia "narrative, account, tale, story," from Gk. historia "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from historein "inquire," from histor "wise man, judge," from PIE *wid-tor-, from base *weid- "to know," lit. "to see" (see vision). Related to Gk. idein "to see," and to eidenai "to know." In M.E., not differentiated from story; sense of "record of past events" probably first attested 1485. Sense of "systematic account (without reference to time) of a set of natural phenomena" (1567) is now obs. except in natural history. What is historic (1669) is noted or celebrated in history; what is historical (1561) deals with history. Historian "writer of history in the higher sense," distinguished from a mere annalist or chronicler, is from 1531. The O.E. word was þeod-wita.




evolve
1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" (see vulva). Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.


Evolution Honored...


Ecc 3:1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
Ecc 3:2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
Ecc 3:3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Ecc 3:4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
Ecc 3:5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
Ecc 3:6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
Ecc 3:7 a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
Ecc 3:8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.



In what is perhaps his most revealing response, a letter in 1879 to John Fordyce, an author of works on scepticism, Darwin writes:

[My] judgment often fluctuates.... Whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term ... In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. -- I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, -- that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.



agnostic
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).




Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.


Sounds agnostic to me...



Yahweh
1869, hypothetical reconstruction of the tetragrammaton YHWH (see Jehovah), based on the assumption that the tetragrammaton is the imperfective of Heb. verb hawah, earlier form of hayah "was," in the sense of "the one who is, the existing."


Welfhard are you saying that you don't believe in "the one who is" that is, "the existing"? Please notice Gods name is a imperfect Verb. This means an action that is not complete or we could even say......it is evolving.

Yeshua is a cognitive of the word above (Yahweh, Hawah) and Shua (salvation). This renders a name that all men are saved in which is a completed action, that being, "the one who is, the existing is salvation"

If the name is not truth, how are you existing?

More fun words:



cosmos

c.1200 (but not popular until 1848, as a translation of Humboldt's Kosmos), from Gk. kosmos "orderly arrangement" (cf. Homeric kosmeo, used of the act of marshaling troops), with an important secondary sense of "ornament, decoration, dress." Pythagoras is said to have been the first to apply this word to "the universe," perhaps originally meaning "the starry firmament," but later it was extended to the whole physical world, including the earth. For specific reference to "the world of people," the classical phrase was he oikoumene (ge) "the inhabited (earth)." Septuagint uses both kosmos and oikoumene. Kosmos also was used in Christian religious writing with a sense of "worldly life, this world (as opposed to the afterlife)," but the more frequent word for this was aion, lit. "lifetime, age." Cosmology is from 1656; cosmonaut is 1959, Anglicization of Rus. kosmonavt.

universe
1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)).

science
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)


This one is my favorite....Peace

[edit on 28-7-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I was watching House M.D. awhile back. This episode featured a man who would not get angry. House believed this to be a medical condition but his fellows were adamant that it did not have to be, but rather constant happiness was possible (to contrast House's constant misery).In one scene, House and Chase were bowling and discussing the idea. Chase said
"Well if happiness is impossible, then why do we have a word for it?"
House responded quickly.
"Ah yes, the ontological proof that the word proves the concept. And you best watch out for the centaurs on your way home."

Language is a tool, not a proof set. I don't much care what god's name means, it's irrelevant. My name is Mike, do you actually think that I am "He who is like the lord?"


Also I might add that I never used the word evolution in my other post - I said natural selection and speciation.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Maybe the BB was the catalyst He used?? I dunno, you don't either, so why argue?


We have every reason to believe the Big Bang occurred, we've understood this from the 1940s, so you probably ought not misrepresent it as a just a stab in the dark. We weren't there but that doesn't stop us from understanding the nature of the event - ask any detective who wasn't at the scene of the crime that he's investigating.

But the BBT aside, my main point here was telling you to stop clinging onto the testimonies about the religiosity of scientists before the 1900's as significant, in a time when everyone believed in such a being - it's pointless.


faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885. Old Faithful geyser named 1870 by explorer Gen. H.D. Washburn, Surveyor-General of the Montana Territory, in ref. to the regularity of its outbursts.

true
O.E. triewe (W.Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy," from P.Gmc. *trewwjaz "having or characterized by good faith" (cf. O.Fris. triuwi, Du. getrouw, O.H.G. gatriuwu, Ger. treu, O.N. tryggr, Goth. triggws "faithful, trusty"), perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree," on the notion of "steadfast as an oak." Cf., from same root, Lith. drutas "firm," Welsh drud, O.Ir. dron "strong," Welsh derw "true," O.Ir. derb "sure." Sense of "consistent with fact" first recorded c.1205; that of "real, genuine, not counterfeit" is from 1398; that of "agreeing with a certain standard" (as true north) is from c.1550. Of artifacts, "accurately fitted or shaped" it is recorded from 1474; the verb in this sense is from 1841. Truism "self-evident truth" is from 1708, first attested in writings of Swift. True-love (adj.) is recorded from 1495; true-born first attested 1591. True-false as a type of test question is recorded from 1923.

Welfhard, you have what I call....true faith.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Welfhard, you have what I call....true faith.


Ha! Amusing. I can understand your desire to bring my belief down to the level of your faith but that doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Faith is defined as a "belief without evidence."
Scientific theories all have evidence abundant, ergo belief in them is not faith.

Science does not allow for faith.


I find your dismantling my language in order to manipulate it's meaning rather underhanded, stranger.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I was watching House M.D. awhile back. This episode featured a man who would not get angry. House believed this to be a medical condition but his fellows were adamant that it did not have to be, but rather constant happiness was possible (to contrast House's constant misery).In one scene, House and Chase were bowling and discussing the idea. Chase said
"Well if happiness is impossible, then why do we have a word for it?"
House responded quickly.
"Ah yes, the ontological proof that the word proves the concept. And you best watch out for the centaurs on your way home."

Language is a tool, not a proof set. I don't much care what god's name means, it's irrelevant. My name is Mike, do you actually think that I am "He who is like the lord?"


Also I might add that I never used the word evolution in my other post - I said natural selection and speciation.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]


Mike you don't believe in a lord.

Again, if you don't believe in the self existent one who is salvation (whatever you believe that to be), how can I call you by Mike, Mike?

Are you not called by your name?



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Mike is not what I am nor is it who I am - it's just a label.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

I've learnt in studying linguists that apart from onomatopoeias what a word actually is has no link with it's meaning. Leg in German is "Beine", head is "Kopf". Therefore it doesn't matter if the concept of god was called Yahweh or Steve, it doesn't make it any truer.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Welfhard, you have what I call....true faith.


Ha! Amusing. I can understand your desire to bring my belief down to the level of your faith but that doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Faith is defined as a "belief without evidence."
Scientific theories all have evidence abundant, ergo belief in them is not faith.

Science does not allow for faith.


I find your dismantling my language in order to manipulate it's meaning rather underhanded, stranger.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]



evident
1382, from L. evidentem (nom. evidens) "perceptible, clear, obvious," from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. of videre "to see" (see vision). Evidence (c.1300) is L.L. evidentia "proof," originally "distinction." After c.1500 it began to oust witness in legal senses.


Perceptible Mike, Clear Mike, Obvious Mike...

What is not evident about what i've shown you?

What do I call your belief in an event (the big bang) that differs it from faith? Did you "Witness" it? Are you learning from the work of those before you or have you actually practiced science, so that you may say, "I know"? If you are learning from others works, are you not doing the same as they? Is not your knowledge, what they have gathered? Are not your ideas given to you or have you devised a new theory from the ashes of those prior? If you have practiced it so that you know, show me as it is true and needs no "faith".

You have the Mike...."He who is like God".



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Oh I see. So your point is that the only way to understand an event, is to witness it. Well I guess that makes every Detective in the police force everywhere completely redundant.

From studying the evidence - things like background radiation and the movement and redshift of galaxies, things can be deduced about the universes origins.

This is not faith, this is belief that is indeed based on evidence.

Your move.



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Mike is not what I am nor is it who I am - it's just a label.

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

I've learnt in studying linguists that apart from onomatopoeias what a word actually is has no link with it's meaning. Leg in German is "Beine", head is "Kopf". Therefore it doesn't matter if the concept of god was called Yahweh or Steve, it doesn't make it any truer.

[edit on 28-7-2009 by Welfhard]


Welfhard, why don't you not understand what I am saying to you? Do you exist? Are you self? Is there any other salvation other then you? Are you self existent salvation? Is the name with which people associate your being Mike? Surely you reserve a designation, or no one could commune with you. Mike might not mean anything to you, but I'm sure your parents find it important, or siblings, or friends, or co-workers, to say otherwise I know is not truth.

Now we know why people get Beened by a baseball and how a cough stuffs the head.

Truth is self evident....it exists and is not made up or theorized on....and when seen it is saved...How can a name speak an action? Who honors anything that one just talks about? "Vanity and grasping at the wind..."

"Re-Spect, Walk....are you talking to me.....A lesson learned in life, known from the dawn of time.".....Pantera - Vulger Display of Power

You are the "ineffable name"....I gotcha.


[edit on 28-7-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Oh I see. So your point is that the only way to understand an event, is to witness it. Well I guess that makes every Detective in the police force everywhere completely redundant.

From studying the evidence - things like background radiation and the movement and redshift of galaxies, things can be deduced about the universes origins.

This is not faith, this is belief that is indeed based on evidence.

Your move.





posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Oh I see. So your point is that the only way to understand an event, is to witness it. Well I guess that makes every Detective in the police force everywhere completely redundant.

From studying the evidence - things like background radiation and the movement and redshift of galaxies, things can be deduced about the universes origins.

This is not faith, this is belief that is indeed based on evidence.

Your move.


Tell me what is not evident about "self existent salvation"?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Oh I see. So your point is that the only way to understand an event, is to witness it. Well I guess that makes every Detective in the police force everywhere completely redundant.



Fragility of eyewitness memory

[edit] Vulnerability to post-event distortion
See also: Interference theory

As with all memories, eyewitness memories can be distorted by what we previously knew (proactive interference) or what we learn in the future (retroactive interference). The distortion of memories by these means has been widely studied in relation to interference theory.

In the case of eyewitness memory, retroactive interference perhaps as a result of police questioning, can lead to difficulty in accurate recall.

A 1974 study by Loftus and Palmer suggests that eyewitness memory is highly vulnerable to post-event distortion. Participants were presented with photographic slides of a multiple-vehicular accident. Experimental group participants were then asked either "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" or "About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?". Participants were questioned a week later as to whether they had seen broken glass in the photographic slides. Although no broken glass was in actuality present in the slides, 32% of participants originally asked if the cars had "smashed into each other" reported they had. This was in comparison to only 14% of those asked if the cars "had hit each other," the conclusion being that the information in the question affected recall of the event.[2][3]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Yo sorry man yea I haven't even used U2U before - I just checked it for the first time,but I didn't see anything - I could be using it wrong though
OT is nutz though, I am pretty sure. He sent me one as well, in which he explains I angered him because I added him as a foe and then called him crazy - he thinks I acknowledge the "respected" bit...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Welfhard, why don't you not understand what I am saying to you? Do you exist? Are you self? Is there any other salvation other then you? Are you self existent salvation? Is the name with which people associate your being Mike? Surely you reserve a designation, or no one could commune with you. Mike might not mean anything to you, but I'm sure your parents find it important, or siblings, or friends, or co-workers, to say otherwise I know is not truth.

Now we know why people get Beened by a baseball and how a cough stuffs the head.

Truth is self evident....it exists and is not made up or theorized on....and when seen it is saved...How can a name speak an action? Who honors anything that one just talks about? "Vanity and grasping at the wind..."

"Re-Spect, Walk....are you talking to me.....A lesson learned in life, known from the dawn of time.".....Pantera - Vulger Display of Power

You are the "ineffable name"....I gotcha.


And so to you, that is proof of God?



Tell me what is not evident about "self existent salvation"?

It's meaning beyond absolute gibberish.



Fragility of eyewitness memory

Yes, and that's exactly why detectives look for more reliable evidence like blood and fingerprints. But hey, what is that but faith?????
... Oh that's right.. Evidence!
That magically little e-word that makes some beliefs reasonable and other's completely childish.


Talk to me when you have some evidence for god.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join