Prove there's a god.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#567169 Nov 29, 2012
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh wow, I'm really sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon. BTW, did you ever come to SF in Sept?
I'm good, but my parents aren't. I'm flying to LA alot to take care of them. It's stressful (my dad has advanced Parkinsons), but they are at least getting good care.
.. so sorry to hear about your parents. It's a difficult situation so lean on your partner and friends, they'll be there for you. If I can help in anyway, let me know. If nothing else, we can chat on the phone, process internal dialogue ..

.. was in SF for 3 days. Twas fun! Sorry I missed you. Visited Castro Street, kinky to say the least. If I return, we'll dance the night away ..

PS: Don't forget to take care of yourself through this difficult time.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567170 Nov 29, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Then if you already knew about them, why did you say that you don't go to the doctor "until" there is a problem and that the human body "self-heals"??
Tell me, does your wife at least go for annual routine mammogram screenings or like you, will she wait until she notices a lump and that there is a problem?
<<<(((sigh)))>> >

Too bad you can't understand sarcasm....

I DO know about cancer & all that jazz. I'm not afraid of it and I'm not afraid of death. When it's my time, it's just my time.

Don't try to correct me on this, it's my opinion for ME, not you.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#567172 Nov 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Naw..... Debating her is fun - and easy :)
Yep- easy for ME- not so much FUN for you to constantly be outed for your overwhelming ignorance and about SO much and on SO many levels.

It does get boring for me at times, though having such an unarmed opponent as yourself, but the amusement I derive from your overwhelming and astounding ignorance does much to compensate for how tedious and pedestrian you are.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#567173 Nov 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of the claims of the bible have been falsified by science.
One cannot convince anybody of anything without their willingness to impartially evaluate an argument and be convinced by a compelling argument - the definition of an open mind. You don't have that.
And of course, since no one can convince a man of that which he has a stake in not believing, we don't base our judgment on whether something is proven by the refusals of the people that are committed to resisting the proof.
Doesn't it make sense that we would ignore the protestations of people vested in science being wrong, especially when they are the only ones saying so?
It is interesting that there are still people who make the claim that no parts of the Bible have been proved false, because there are so many denominations that have recognized that these things have been found to be false and have built that into how they teach religion. Why would any large organized denomination change their interpretation of the Bible to agree with current knowledge if it were not true?

If these people realized what goes on in the head offices of their particular faiths, they would know that the administration has to deal all the time with how to handle new information, and yes sometimes they decide to stand up to the truth and hold the line and keep the myths, but they still do acknowledge internally that there is information they have to look at.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567174 Nov 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, you shouldn't - not in a venue like this where many different kinds of people read your words, including many that are unfamiliar with you - and not if you want to be understood.
Your bible's authors make the same mistake when they use metaphor, simile, allegory or whatever in place of clear, expository discourse. It's a useless way to communicate important ideas that you want understood.
Try it in a will: "I bequeath to Jessica the lion's share of my estate if she is as wise as an owl."
<quoted text>
Bad assumption. What was in question were your values regarding what was inappropriate for children to see. That's not a good place to assume that those values are understood.
<quoted text>
Just learn to write plainly. Why write a sentence like that one above? How about, "I will try to use clear, simple, direct, and precise language"? You can't "make sure" that you will, but you can try harder to do so. Avoid words like "always" and "everything" when you mean often or a lot.
And when you fail to communicate as well as you had hoped, look at why and how you can do better rather than to generate some snarky reply that blames your audience for your failure to communicate.
<quoted text>
Bad attitude. You should be contrite, not sarcastic. You tried to communicate and failed.
gee, taking cues on how to communicate and the effects on conversation from the guy who blatantly lies. Thanks but no thanks. Until you have the courage to answer why you told me "no and i am not going to keep correcting you" when I said you believed it is possible for there to be creator gods and then later said there was then you and i have nothing left to say. You have shown repeatedly to use manipulative and dishonest tactics when discussing things and don't even have the intellectual integrity to maintain a modicum of the respect shown to you while doing it. So your critiques of how I choose to post don't interest me. You know what helps communication better than not using hyperbole? Not lying.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#567175 Nov 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
<<<(((sigh)))>> >
Too bad you can't understand sarcasm....
I DO know about cancer & all that jazz. I'm not afraid of it and I'm not afraid of death. When it's my time, it's just my time.
Don't try to correct me on this, it's my opinion for ME, not you.
<<<<<<<(( (sigh)))>>>>

I thought it was a GIVEN that you KNEW I knew it was sarcasm....geez.... as well as yet ANOTHER piss poor attempt at humor on your part and a way to avoid the fact that you are IGNORANT to think the human body "self-heals" from the deadliest of diseases- most of which can be prevented- or at least cured- if caught in time by a visit to the doctor including routine screenings and exams.

Okay- fine- that is your opinion for YOU as is your right- no denying that at ALL.

But stop with the moronic self delusion that the human body "self heals" or that it's only necessary to see a doctor AFTER symptoms occur.

BTW, this really has nothing to do with "fear"- it's about wanting to live as long as possible with as good a quality of life as possible and not only for yourself, but for your loved ones as well.

So stop with the "manly" crap, RR that you "ain't ascared of nuthin'!"

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567176 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel like you're backtracking, especially given the next post you wrote to me, but whatever, I'll accept you at your word. My apologies.
<quoted text>
The thing is, your question assumes a lot of context. It assumes that the parents have raised the kid as if nakedness is ok and then don't care to watch their child around strangers. That's pretty strange. Who leaves a 4 year old unattended? Who leaves a 4 year old unattended around strangers? Who leaves a 4 year old unattended around naked strangers?
Let's go with the normal: child raised as if nakedness is ok. Parents are naked, kid's naked, strangers are naked. In this context, there's no difference between kid thinking naked stranger is ok versus not ok - would the parents not have taught to the child that strangers might be dangerous? My parents taught me this when I was very young; I remember being scared of strangers as early as 4 years old.
So I see your question as leading and disingenuous. I would guess that all pedophiles in America start off clothed - and the vast majority of them are not strangers to the child.
However, if we talk about cultures where nakedness is normal, what we find is a distinct lack of pedophilia (baring cultures where pederasty is ritualized). I wrote you in a later post about the Yanomami word for pedophilia - it comes from a foreigner, named Lizot.
I am not saying the naked stranger is going to come up to the 4 year old and molest him on the spot because of course he probably isn't going to be unattended and there is no reason to think there is a link between nudist and pedophiles anyway

You are missing the point entirely. It would create at atmosphere that makes abuse easier for pedophiles. And whatever reason clothe-less societies have less pedophilia (which I have seen no proof of) has no barring on this conversation as we aren't talking about a society that has always been nudists. We are talking about interjecting it into a society that isn't that has problems with pedophiles

Listen, justify it however you want. I think it is one of the most irresponsible things an adult in society can do to a child and there is no excuse for it. It has nothing to do with sexual repression either. What consenting adults want to do is fine. Keep your private parts out of the eyes of other people's kids. It isn't a lot to ask.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#567177 Nov 29, 2012
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Hiding! How the prosletyzing-for-science thing working out? Keep up the good work! I've just begun an interesting book by Sam Harris ("The Moral Landscape") who is arguing that morality is objective and can be addressed by science. I'm not sure how much I will agree with him, but I do agree that it's illogical to argue that science must have a hands-off approach to morality. What do you think?
I don't believe science is objective and I kind of think he's taking a philosophical stance with regards to morality and working science into it. I think that's ok, though. The discipline has to start somewhere - all I hope is that he takes a cross cultural point of view.

For example, it probably matters to morality if you're from an individual based culture or a group based culture, but I'm not sure his position would grasp that.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567178 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you've totally fictionalized my position and exaggerated to a ridiculous extreme.
I never said, not once, that we should allow kids to be naked around pedophiles. What's wrong with you?
I'm not a pederast you fuckface.
You really are an idiot aren't you?

Pay attention. It is like trying to explain something to a retarded person with the only difference is they would have understood long before you and they have a legitimate excuse.

Allowing strangers to be naked in front of children makes children think that is ok.

Therefore, pedophiles who seek to abuse children will find what used to be a big barrier (convincing children to get naked or that it is ok for them to be naked) jas already been removed thanks to people like you that would allow children to be subjected to naked strangers which would lead them to believe there is nothign wrong with it

Your 'defense' of this position was, everybody has genitalia, kids have genitalia so what is the big deal if they see someone else's? The big deal is other than the fact that it is inappropriate and there is not a single legitimate reason why they should be, the downside is that it opens up the door to abuse even wider

Other than getting hand-puppets i don't know how else to explain this to you.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#567179 Nov 29, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not specify 'Christian' churches, i merely said billions of churches.
how many churches do you suppose is in your home town alone?
i can open the phone book in my SMALL town and count approx 70 churches.
thats in a SMALL country area.
this planet is covered with churches.
and my point to the OTHER poster was that if the holy bible were not trustworthy there should would not be so many churches thriving as they have and do.
UIF, there cannot be billions of churches in the world, because Christianity represents way less than 1/2 the total 7 billion population, so if say 2 billion Christians each had a separate church that would make 2 billion churches, but we know that some churches have up in the thousands of members, while others may have only a handful. Here is a rough estimate of RC churches in the world, but they claim it is impossible to know. RC is the largest denomination in the worlds, so I would expect that they would have well over 1/2 of all churches.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Roman_Cath...

"Best Answer

The answer to this question is almost impossible, as some Catholic churches, while still be recognized as such, have been put to other uses or turned into museums. As well, there are chapels and many other such designations that function as a church building but which are not registered as such.
The closest statistic to your query is the number of parishes. In 2005 the number of parishes, with or without a resident pastor, numbered 270,125."

Based on that number and considering that some parishes may not have a building, and others may have more than one building, let's assume there are 300,000 RC churches worldwide, and there are disagreements as to what percent of the Christians are RC, but let's assume 1/3 though the number I found is 1/2, so at 1/3 then there would be about 900,000 churches in total. I have my doubts that the figure is quite that high but would even settled on 1 million, to prevent any arguments.

One million is 1000 times less than 1 billion, so there cannot be billions of churches, and for that matter, with 7 billion people we are probably not even looking at many billions of homes. The same site as above states there is about 1.4 billion households in the world. Again likely a wild guess.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567180 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm not a pederast you fuckface.
Please show me where in this sentence I said you were a pederist

"But I don't and I have to imagine almost all of society, other than pederasts and the small minority you are in that just sees nothing wrong with it, would agree with me."

I really think you may not be able to understand English while amazingly being able to communicate by it. Or maybe you are just so fixated on what you want to say next that you don't take the time to read properly?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#567181 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not saying the naked stranger is going to come up to the 4 year old and molest him on the spot because of course he probably isn't going to be unattended and there is no reason to think there is a link between nudist and pedophiles anyway
You are missing the point entirely. It would create at atmosphere that makes abuse easier for pedophiles.
No, it doesn't. The only thing that creates an atmosphere of abuse that is easier for pedophiles is divine justification - i.e., organized religion.
And whatever reason clothe-less societies have less pedophilia (which I have seen no proof of) has no barring on this conversation as we aren't talking about a society that has always been nudists. We are talking about interjecting it into a society that isn't that has problems with pedophiles
Listen, justify it however you want. I think it is one of the most irresponsible things an adult in society can do to a child and there is no excuse for it. It has nothing to do with sexual repression either. What consenting adults want to do is fine. Keep your private parts out of the eyes of other people's kids. It isn't a lot to ask.
See? You've been encultured to see nudity as shameful. You have no argument, you just "think it is one of the most irresponsible things."

You're incapable of justifying your position here. You've failed to answer my question about the harm nudity would cause children.

That's fine, but you should be honest to yourself. Nudity bothers you and you want to pass that discomfort onto children because you feel that people should be bothered by nudity.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567182 Nov 29, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Yep- easy for ME- not so much FUN for you to constantly be outed for your overwhelming ignorance and about SO much and on SO many levels.
It does get boring for me at times, though having such an unarmed opponent as yourself, but the amusement I derive from your overwhelming and astounding ignorance does much to compensate for how tedious and pedestrian you are.
Your arrogance is beyond reason. Just because you copy/paste some info about a topic doesn't mean your "teaching" me anything. Most of the time you're posting stuff I already know. For example when you posted again and again (and again) about the hungry kids in America. I already knew about that, but you posted the info the proceeded topat yourself on the back for being smart....

You're odd.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#567183 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
You really are an idiot aren't you?
Takes one to know one, moron.
Pay attention.
Try writing directly, succinctly, with honesty and less dissembling.
It is like trying to explain something to a retarded person with the only difference is they would have understood long before you and they have a legitimate excuse.
This his who you are, Skom. It's who you break down to when you constantly lose arguments.
Allowing strangers to be naked in front of children makes children think that is ok.
Wow. So now the argument I'm making is that we should allow a bunch of strangers to be naked in front of children.

Do you think, even remotely, before you write this stuff?
Therefore, pedophiles who seek to abuse children will find what used to be a big barrier (convincing children to get naked or that it is ok for them to be naked) jas already been removed thanks to people like you that would allow children to be subjected to naked strangers which would lead them to believe there is nothign wrong with it
Yeah, because pedophile strangers are allowed to be around children all the time when you're naked, but not when you're clothed. It's a given among nudists that you invite the pedophile strangers in, so your kids can see them naked.

Do you even think, remotely, before you write this nonsense?
Your 'defense' of this position was, everybody has genitalia, kids have genitalia so what is the big deal if they see someone else's?
Right. My defense of your brilliant "let the pedophile strangers in because we're all naked here, give them some time alone with the kiddies" just happens to be "it's ok,'cause we all have genitals."

How is it possible you are this stupid?
The big deal is other than the fact that it is inappropriate and there is not a single legitimate reason why they should be, the downside is that it opens up the door to abuse even wider
Other than getting hand-puppets i don't know how else to explain this to you.
So nakedness is inappropriate because you say it is and that's just the way it is, sans any intellect on your side whatsoever?

Do you end all your discussions with straw men, goal post moving and massive stupidity?

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#567184 Nov 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your arrogance is beyond reason. Just because you copy/paste some info about a topic doesn't mean your "teaching" me anything. Most of the time you're posting stuff I already know. For example when you posted again and again (and again) about the hungry kids in America. I already knew about that, but you posted the info the proceeded topat yourself on the back for being smart....
You're odd.
The majority of my posts are MY thoughts, MY opinions and FACTS which at times I DO back up with confirmation of what I already know to be true.

No...it is YOU who is odd and all the more for bringing up posts from MONTHS ago- there's that anal-retentiveness, RR that you exhibit so very often here.....

In the meantime, can't you answer questions? I understand that YOU are too "manly" to go to the doctor and you don't care if you die from something that could have been treated and cured if caught in time, but what about your wife?

Is she as irresponsible and as reckless about knowing the state of her health as you are or does she go for annual routine mammograms and OB/GYN exams?

Simple question- which shouldn't be perceived as too personal by you; after all, you've posted much about your wife which is much more personal than that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567185 Nov 29, 2012
OCB wrote:
But stop with the moronic self delusion that the human body "self heals" or that it's only necessary to see a doctor AFTER symptoms occur.
You think it's my delusion that the human body self heals?!?

Are you ok?

“'I WILL CORRECT YOU'”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#567186 Nov 29, 2012
what?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#567187 Nov 29, 2012
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
don't you think it would be fair if you would do what you expect of me and others to do? You want me to say,'I' believe when addressing issues of the bible.
so would it not be equally fair for you to say,'you' don't believe what is presented out there concerning biblical truths?
I believe what i believe based on what I have read, saw, studied, and experienced in MY life.
for me that IS sufficent proof.
and since ones faith is a personal relationship they develope with God, then should I not be allowed to fully experience what it is I believe and know in my heart?
Yes, that is a fair question, and I can add 'I believe' to what I state, but in most cases, except if I post a quote or link, and don't make a comment, I am stating what I believe is the truth, so it just saves words.

Because we have to take a lot of facts as being true, such as the danger of a nuclear power plant melting down which has already happened several times in the world, and that if a space vehicle enters back into the atmosphere without protective shielding or with damaged protective shielding our scientists claim that it will blow up or disintegrate. We knew that theoretically based on science knowledge but when it actually happened just a few years ago killing 7 people, millions of people watched the broken up vehicle flying overhead either live or on tv.

There are just two many scientific facts for any one person to research each one of them himself, so we learn that there are certain avenues of which knowledge is gathered and reported, and which is considered accurate enough to risk people's lives on, and we accept those as being true, unless later they are found to have had some unforeseen error.

These things keep getting amended all the time as new information is discovered, but some things have held true for a long time with many different forms of research, and some of those are proved evidence that the earth did not have The Flood. With that knowledge the Flood story has no choice but to be taken as a myth.

It can't be true.

That is one example of many.

In that vein, I would guess, but I can't actually prove, that no publication put out by a fundamentalist Christian organization would be accepted by the generally accepted science community as fact, except when they report only what the accepted reputable science journals have reported, and the source is the respected journals, not the religious publications.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#567188 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. The only thing that creates an atmosphere of abuse that is easier for pedophiles is divine justification - i.e., organized religion.
The "only" thing?? Are you sure?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#567189 Nov 29, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention that she is an IDIOT- one does not "learn" culture- one ATTAINS culture or ACQUIRES culture.
Of course, given how you and nano have no culture at all, I'm not surprised you don't know that, and given how WILLFULLY IGNORANT and INTELLECTUALLY LAZY you are, I'm not surprised you don't think calling someone a "creep" is name-calling, despite that it DEFINITELY is.
Get lost.
OCB, no offence intended (why do people always say that before they offend someone?) but for yourself, because we know you are a good and reliable poster, it might be okay for you not to use the same wording as others use to describe you incorrectly. Some people could consider that as tit for tat, and then we have to go back and see who 'started it'.

It is okay to come back on me and same same goes for you buster, as you do it too, because, yes I do.:( I am trying to stop doing it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min ROCCO 64,572
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 30 min DebraE 106,603
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 41 min onemale 281,952
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 1 hr Ricky F 39,120
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 654,406
SEALS vs. "Green Berets"...who would win? (Jan '08) 2 hr RichieBoi 165
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 3 hr WasteWater 2,599
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 hr bad bob 183,213
More from around the web