T1B

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:05 am**

Rog, like Annie lo those many occasions, you're clearly well overdue for a time-out from interwebbing.

You not well.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:07 am**

mvscal wrote:Couple questions here.

Are you or are you not "1/16th Jewish"?

Are you or are you not some unspecified percentage "Negro"?

Did you or did you not "literally" crap your pants while watching a humorous television program?

Well, MV,

It depends on whether or not you have the brains God gave a fruit fly. If so, you will know that Judaisim is a religion, while the race of people known as 'Semites' consist of Jews and Arabs, which is a 'RACE' of people. So, racially, I am 1/8th Jewish, because my Great Grandmother, Ida Fouchot, was a Polish Jew, and married my Great Grandfather, Jean Marc Baptiste Boudet in 1910. Also, on my mother's side of the family, who came from North Alabama, two of my great grandmothers were half black/half Cherokee Indian, in the Gadsden, Alabama area. And My Dad's mother, last name of Woods, go back to England and Scotland. My Mom's Dad, 'Eller', go back to Holland and Germany.

Thus making me.........an American.

A mutt. Part black, Indian, Jewish, French, Caucasian, Scottish, Dutch, Polish........etc.

Pure 100% American.

Anything else you want to know?

oh, sorry for this edit: I have no idea what the "crapped my pants" thing was about. I once pooped in my pants when I had the flu about 10 years ago, when I was puking at the same time, running a 103 degree temp. Other than that, nope.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:10 am**

Van wrote:Rog, like Annie lo those many occasions, you're clearly well overdue for a time-out from interwebbing.

You not well.

Van,

If you would note the amount of posts by you, and how many in the past few months, verses myself, you will see it is you that need a break, not I.

People that disagree with you do not need "a break". I suggest you take some time off.

Thus:

Van
Cunning Linguist

Posts: 10847
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:38 pm

verses

Roger_the_Shrubber
Back-o-Matic

Posts: 679
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:29 am

I was never good at math but..........isnt 10,847 more than 679?

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:16 pm**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:
Van wrote:Rog, like Annie lo those many occasions, you're clearly well overdue for a time-out from interwebbing.

You not well.
Van,

If you would note the amount of posts by you, and how many in the past few months, verses myself, you will see it is you that need a break, not I.

People that disagree with you do not need "a break". I suggest you take some time off.

Thus:

Van
Cunning Linguist

Posts: 10847
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:38 pm

verses

Roger_the_Shrubber
Back-o-Matic

Posts: 679
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:29 am

I was never good at math but..........isnt 10,847 more than 679?

10,00+ posts and i don't even know what state van lives in. i think california, but at the very least i can't google map the fucker's run down trailer, not to mention i don't know which 158-year-old dead lady to dig up and stick my penis in just so you have to feel bad that i fucked your gma + tell my kid he's jewish. i think that's what he meant by you need a break, junkie. also, you rely on a poorly written book to make your religious arguments for you. that's ok: you're forgiven.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:58 pm**

88 wrote:when I said I wanted some old school proof of the existence of God,

I think I mentioned this before, but . . .

Many years ago (probably before some of the folks on this board were born, in fact), as a freshman in college, I took an Introduction to Philosophy course. In that course, we examined a number of different writings, each purporting to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, from any of a number of different perspectives. Thing was, the logical construct of all of the writings broke down in some fashion or another.

I know there are a number of other posters on this board with college degrees, so I'm somewhat puzzled by the fact that so many apparently never took such a course.

There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic. By the same standpoint, there is no "proof" of the lack of God's existence sufficient to sway a believer. Ultimately, what one believes on this question is a matter of faith, or lack thereof.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:16 pm**

People need a God in order to justify the rewards they assume are coming their way. People like to think that they have goodies in store for them after their forms decompose like IRIE's toenails.

Focus on living a moral life in the NOW is annoyingly difficult for them. Such a life might be reward in itself...might not. They'll never know, they can't be troubled to explore it.

To profess to lead the Christian life is to exclaim "I'm uninterested in the details. Just send me the cheese."

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:21 pm**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:pentient

ELIMINATED

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:23 pm**

@ PSU

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:32 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:People need a God in order to justify the rewards they assume are coming their way. People like to think that they have goodies in store for them after their forms decompose like IRIE's toenails.

Focus on living a moral life in the NOW is annoyingly difficult for them. Such a life might be reward in itself...might not. They'll never know, they can't be troubled to explore it.

To profess to lead the Christian life is to exclaim "I'm uninterested in the details. Just send me the cheese."

That...and some are just plain nosy ass motherfuckers who can't accept "Because I said so" in any walk of life. These are the same people who go apeshit when told that "they are on a need to know basis and they don't need to know." Many people, things like that can make their head explode.

And equally pathetic are those who push the envelope in the other direction. The thumpers. I kow they feel they are doing God's work by testifying to others, but seriously, simply ask them if they are in or out. If they say out, let'em deal with it in whatever afterlife you believe in. You wanna piss them off? Don't cram your beliefs down their throats. Wait for the end you believe will come and give them a big fucking I told you so.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:57 pm**

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:Send me a self adressed stamped envelope, and I promise you there will be a nice crisp $20 bill inside of it.

Bwahahahaha! Right. Just like the last 47 times you said you would, right? But when it comes time to actually making it happen, you ignore, stall, lie, delay, ignore some more, and then finally guilt trip your way out of something as measly as paying up a lost bet. When it was YOU who offered up the challenge in the first place. Oh, but publically, you sure have great intentions, don't you? Behind the scenes it's a whole 'nother story. It's hardly about the money at this point, anyway. I'm just drawing attention to the fact you're a piece of human excrement, and have no business acting as some sort of sanctimonious torch bearer.

Keep the 20 bucks and get a real fucking haircut, you ASS.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:13 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Ultimately, what one believes on this question is a matter of faith

Kierkegaard used the "leap of faith" as the figurative jumping off point in the attempt to meld philosophy with the belief in a supreme being. The leap signifies there is a chasm over which a believer must bound since there is no bridge connecting the dots in the attempt to prove the existence of God. It is the antithesis of Hegelian rationalism.

Sudden Sam wrote:Why do you need this as an answer to all things you don't understand?

Trying to make sense of that which cannot be understood is only one aspect of religious belief. Another is the refusal to accept that life is unfair. Since it is abundantly evident that good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to those who are seemingly "undeserving" of misfortune, religions that promote just desserts in an afterlife provide comfort to those who want desperately to believe that there is a sense of cosmic fair play that cannot be observed in our earthly existence. Plus, the concept of immortality is also appealing, especially in the fairy tale sense that "good" people get to spend eternity in paradise while "bad" folks have to suffer eternal damnation.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:35 pm**

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:Send me a self adressed stamped envelope, and I promise you there will be a nice crisp $20 bill inside of it.
Bwahahahaha! Right. Just like the last 47 times you said you would, right? But when it comes time to actually making it happen, you ignore, stall, lie, delay, ignore some more, and then finally guilt trip your way out of something as measly as paying up a lost bet. When it was YOU who offered up the challenge in the first place. Oh, but publically, you sure have great intentions, don't you? Behind the scenes it's a whole 'nother story. It's hardly about the money at this point, anyway. I'm just drawing attention to the fact you're a piece of human excrement, and have no business acting as some sort of sanctimonious torch bearer.

Keep the 20 bucks and get a real fucking haircut, you ASS.

So, it's Roger_the_Bet Welcher, is it?

What and when was this bet and gotta' link?

But let me get this straight first, RtBW. You want Mgo to send you a SASE so that you can pay off your debt to him? That's awesome, dude.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:49 pm**

88 wrote: Terry-

I have a minor in philosophy. Obviously, there is no possible way to prove the existence or non-existence of God, even if the purported God came down and swore to himself that he was God. What some of us have been discussing in this thread is whether there exists any present day rational reasons to believe that there is a God (suggesting that maybe "belief" has more to do with the concepts of tradition, fear and circumstance - e.g., being born into a believing family - than any good faith independent reasoning).

My point in making the post you quoted was simply that rational people would have a much greater degree of comfort with the notion that God exists if God or one of his proxies would engage (in the present day) in the kind of "old school" stuff that is virtually incapable of any other rational explanation. In other words, if a dude went on MSNBC and said he was God or the son of God and also said that he was going to kill the first born child of every person on Earth on Tuesday unless they smeared lamb's blood over their door, and then carried out that threat using some green theatrical fog, yes I'd have to say that it would make me much more likely to conclude that the person on MSNBC was God or the son of God. Would it be absolute proof of his existence? No. But it would be convincing to me.

I know you wrote this to Terry and I'm pretty well ignored. That's cool. I'll post this anyway.

Just because I can break down the systems and the neat little latin words that describe how the systems of the universe play out does not mean they are any more or less miraculous.

Not to me anyway. In fact the complexities, the intricate balances, and all the things that make life possible and have been discovered by science make me believe and be in awe of God even more.

It's not my job to speak words to you so you'll believe. I hope you understand I am not trying to do that. I'm just trying to explain something to you that you don't seem to "get".

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:10 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I'm pretty well ignored. That's cool. I'll post this anyway.

Just because somebody doesn't respond to someone elses post(s] doesn't mean they're being ignored.

I'm not ignoring you, Tom.

Anyways, I love how non-believers try to attribute certain motives towards people of faith when by definition, they can't know or understand why someone believes or "feels" the way that they do since they've never experienced that epiphany themselves.

And then they go on to rail against Christians trying to "shove that down their throat".... while they're doing the very same thing, as it were, with their non-belief.

This topic belongs in the Theology forum, the place atheists go to prove that there is no God.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:36 pm**

Terry wrote:There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic. By the same standpoint, there is no "proof" of the lack of God's existence sufficient to sway a believer. Ultimately, what one believes on this question is a matter of faith, or lack thereof.

Good take.

Sam wrote:What I can't fathom is this driving need some have to believe in the existence of a god

People are called, Sam, and it is a spiritual movement (that which we don't see) which reveals the truth of Christ to them.

1 Corinthians 12:3
no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:46 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic.

Complete bullshit. Try checking back in when you have even the most meager shred of evidence let alone proof. The fact of the matter is you have absolutely nothing other than a collection of musty old fairy tales.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:46 pm**

poptart wrote:
Terry wrote:There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic. By the same standpoint, there is no "proof" of the lack of God's existence sufficient to sway a believer. Ultimately, what one believes on this question is a matter of faith, or lack thereof.
Good take.

Yeah, it is, and it was a good take when I first offered it way back at the beginning of this thread, or when I offered it last year, or the year before, or....

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:48 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic.
Complete bullshit. Try checking back in when you have even the most meager shred of evidence let alone proof. The fact of the matter is you have absolutely nothing other than a collection of musty old fairy tales.

mvscal, read it again. He's agreeing with you. He's saying there is NO proof of the existence of God.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:53 pm**

Van wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:There is no "proof" of the existence of God sufficient to convince a skeptic.
Complete bullshit. Try checking back in when you have even the most meager shred of evidence let alone proof. The fact of the matter is you have absolutely nothing other than a collection of musty old fairy tales.
mvscal, read it again. He's agreeing with you. He's saying there is NO proof of the existence of God.

No, he is most certainly not saying there is no proof of God. He is saying that even if there was proof of God it would not be accepted by skeptics.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm**

:?

He said there is no proof of God sufficient to convince a skeptic. That's not the same thing as saying there's a mountain of proof, yet it's still not enough to convince a skeptic.

Seems like much ado about nothing.

Posted: **Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:58 pm**

You said this, Van, and I didn't disagree with you.

Van wrote:Either way it's just a belief

The Bible is upfront in telling us that God wants our faith.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 12:28 am**

God needs to make some effort to step up and earn that faith. Sitting on his ass and resting on some iffy laurels from over two thousand years ago ain't cutting it anymore. His wildly fallible and laughably corrupt salesmen ain't up to the job. It's time for him to climb down from his ivory tower and actually do something. This absentee owner nonsense is what's leading to situations where we have feeble old men in the role of ugly figureheads tearing down His house.

pop, from your perspective, should pedo priests be prosecuted under criminal law, excommunicated from the church and condemned to hellfire for their transgressions in His name?

According to you, I know I'm supposed to be going to hell, and not merely for my repeated beanings of Barry White's kid in Little League, so what about priests whose acts must be viewed as the most vile of abominations under any semblance of sane church doctrine? (Excuse the oxymoron.)

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:00 am**

War Wagon wrote:And then they go on to rail against Christians trying to "shove that down their throat"....

Yeah, don't they know we stopped doing that years ago? Now we just inch it down their throats, very slowly, as to not emit any high pitched screams from the confession booth.

Warmest regards,

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:05 am**

88 wrote: I feel no compulsion to drive anyway to or away from their religious beliefs.

Don't worry, you didn't. It's not about religion anyway.

I just don't understand how people can consider the world around them and then decide it was created by and is controlled by God.

I don't understand how people can consider the world around them
and not consider it the work of a power greater than oneself.

If you believe in God and that belief makes you feel good, then so be it. It isn't like you being wrong is going to change anything. So what is the harm?

It's not about it making me feel good. It's about me recognizing basics. I know exactly at which time the sun will rise and set tomorrow over my patch of paradise... did you invent that phenomena, 88?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:09 am**

Van wrote:pop, from your perspective, should pedo priests be prosecuted under criminal law, excommunicated from the church and condemned to hellfire for their transgressions in His name?

Van, I've basically stayed away from comments on the catholic church.

Of course they should be prosecuted.
The catholic church can do what they want with them, I don't care.
God is the judge, and the Bible shows us that there is one standard for salvation - are you covered by the blood?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:57 am**

Time for some tough love here.

poptart wrote:...are you covered by the blood?

Are you?

you've never really explained your personal situation, keeping those cards close to your vest.

If you desire to convert, then more must be shown.... ya' know, that beacon on a hill and by their fruits, ye shall know them trump cards.

You've not done that, all you've done is quote Bible verses.

My estimation is that you're nothing more than a mouthy Evangelical (who runs a great NFL football pool) who can talk the talk but hasn't and may never walk the walk.

It's been 10 years, you may begin trying to convince me otherwise other than that mutual respect shown on PurpleRoxs' funeral webpage. That was really cool, Mr. Fisher of men.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:04 am**

Van wrote::?

He said there is no proof of God sufficient to convince a skeptic. That's not the same thing as saying there's a mountain of proof, yet it's still not enough to convince a skeptic.

Semantically it is exactly the same thing. The purpose of the aphorism is to convict skeptics of intellectual dishonesty and relieve believers of any burden of proof.

It is a classic logical fallacy. Your rhetorical skills are rudimentary at best.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:12 am**

War Wagon wrote:Time for some tough love here.

poptart wrote:...are you covered by the blood?
Are you?

you've never really explained your personal situation, keeping those cards close to your vest.

I am, yes.

I've believed Christ.
I've confessed Him.
I've received Him.

I'm forever covered by the blood.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:15 am**

poptart wrote:I've received Him.

In which orifice?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:20 am**

88 wrote:What has that got to do with the existence or non-existence of God?

Did you just take another breath?

God exists, how elemental.... what a clumsy attempt to prove otherwise by pointing out the failings of the Catholic church... who are only human.

Say what you will about Catholicism and I won't argue with you much, but it's been the bedrock of the elemental Christian faith for 2,000 years.

Who are you to say different?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:30 am**

88 wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:I know you wrote this to Terry and I'm pretty well ignored. That's cool. I'll post this anyway.
Tom-

There was no intent on my part to slight you in any way. If you feel that way, I'm sorry.

WW-

I feel no compulsion to drive anyway to or away from their religious beliefs. I just don't understand how people can consider the world around them and then decide it was created by and is controlled by God. If you believe in God and that belief makes you feel good, then so be it. It isn't like you being wrong is going to change anything. So what is the harm?

It's not as much as I feel slighted as the point in bold where you're addressing Wags (thanks Wags, BTW) as it is, I don't understand - that you don't understand when I've tried to explain it.

If my explanation is insufficient, I can appreciate that. Where you seem to draw the line between science, reason, intellect AND faith in God - I don't see a line. I see them all as gifts from him.

I do believe God created the universe, and I believe science has discovered and will continue to discover the mysteries and magesty of that creation. I guess what I was looking for was more of an explanation of your position and why seem to need to draw such a distinction between the two.

Mind you, I'm referring to the "God concept" moreso than any specific doctrine or tradition.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:55 am**

Tom In VA wrote:(thanks Wags, BTW).

You are welcome, my good man.

I appreciate your perspective and level headedness, but mostly the humble demeanor... God knows that's tough with this crew.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:26 am**

War Wagon wrote:God exists

Link?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:29 am**

War Wagon wrote: , but mostly the humble demeanor...

You know that's just a front. Don't you?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:50 am**

Mikey wrote:
War Wagon wrote: , but mostly the humble demeanor...
You know that's just a front. Don't you?

Not as much as you think. I do admit to taking an amateur stab at some socratic method action on occasion though.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:03 am**

pointing out the failings of the Catholic church... who are only human.

Hold on a sec. I thought the Catholic Church was led by the Pope - who is infallible? Isn't that what the doctrine suggests?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:06 am**

PSUFAN wrote:
pointing out the failings of the Catholic church... who are only human.
Hold on a sec. I thought the Catholic Church was led by the Pope - who is infallible? Isn't that what the doctrine suggests?

He is only considered infallible in certain areas.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:11 am**

I get it. He's infallible...except when he isn't. Fairly convenient, eh?

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:13 am**

He came from Adam.

He is completely fallible.

Make no mistake.

Posted: **Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:14 am**

PSUFAN wrote:I get it. He's infallible...except when he isn't. Fairly convenient, eh?

, I guess. It's an odd thing if you ask me.

T1B

88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today

Re: 88 Went To Mass Today