Prove there's a god.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#589904 Jan 17, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
You mean English? The language you attempt to speak?
C'mon... You know there's a difference between British English & American English (and Australian English)....

We don't use words like bugger, arse, pub, spot on, knickers or daft.

We have a vacation, you have a holiday.

We hav generals, you have air marshalls.

We have aluminum, you have aluminium.

We have to-MAY-toes, you have to-MAH-toes...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589905 Jan 17, 2013
United in faith wrote:
how could GOD be the devil?
Your god made it VERY clear;

ALL evil comes from your God;

(Isaiah 45:7) I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

This would be where you do a little dance and try to delude yourself otherwise...LOL..

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#589907 Jan 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
I was wondering why all these people are so afraid of guns.
I don't understand it but, I came upon the answer as I was thinking about it . Most Americans do not fear the gun why?
Because....In God We Trust.
And I don't even believe in him.
Does that mean you fear the gun?

I DO trust in God.

I don't foolishly think that God will stop a bullet from entering m brain, though...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#589908 Jan 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
I was wondering why all these people are so afraid of guns.
I don't understand it but, I came upon the answer as I was thinking about it . Most Americans do not fear the gun why?
Because....In God We Trust.
And I don't even believe in him.
Does that mean you fear the gun?

I DO trust in God.

I don't foolishly think that God will stop a bullet from entering me brain, though...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#589906 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, sumbitch. You're right. Al #13
www.webelements.com/
===
"The official change in the US to the –um spelling happened quite late: the American Chemical Society only adopted it in 1925, though this was clearly in response to the popular shift that had already taken place. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially standardised on aluminium in 1990, though this has done nothing, of course, to change the way people in the US spell it for day to day purposes."
www.worldwidewords.org/articles/aluminium.htm
===
We Americans just don't wanna hear your British pig-talk, I suppose :)
Good, progress.

Now, about "plough"...

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#589909 Jan 17, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. perhaps it's tribal instinct. Don't know ..
<quoted text>
.. we've become politically correct instead of recognizing the problem, addressing it honestly and finding solutions ..
<quoted text>
.. this is an untrue racist comment. If anything, the opposite is true ..
<quoted text>
.. culture ..
We can't discount history.

The playing field has been far from level.

I understand the frustration and resulting anger.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589910 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There are so many different variations to "the white man", it's impossible to say that there's a white culture or a "typical white". I don't think there's a "typical black" either.
There is no such thing as true black or white. Every white person has black markers in their DNA and every black person has white markers. It's just a matter of what ratio each person has.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#589911 Jan 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Only in America.
Blame Webster.

At first it was alumium, then aluminum, then aluminium - to fit better with other elements like potassium, sodium, and magnesium...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589912 Jan 17, 2013
United in faith wrote:
every one of your scoffers list of "contridictions" has been shown to you as ERROR.
Not true. Delusion banging in your head? LOl...
Largelanguage

Halkyn, UK

#589913 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon... You know there's a difference between British English & American English (and Australian English)....
We don't use words like bugger, arse, pub, spot on, knickers or daft.
We have a vacation, you have a holiday.
We hav generals, you have air marshalls.
We have aluminum, you have aluminium.
We have to-MAY-toes, you have to-MAH-toes...
Both brits and yankees have generals and marshals. A general is the highest rank, while a marshal is in charge of the entire army, including the generals. Showing more redneck ignorance.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#589914 Jan 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Good, progress.
Now, about "plough"...
Interesting. I didn't know y'all spelled "plow" that way.

In American and Canadian English, plow is the preferred spelling of the farm implement and its related verbs. Plough is the preferred spelling in all other varieties of English.

The spelling distinction applies to all senses of the word, including figurative ones. British and Australian writers always use plough, along with ploughed and ploughing; American and Canadian writers always use plow, plowed, and plowing. Both spellings are pronounced the same.

Examples:

English: We ploughed the field this afternoon.

American: I plowed his wife as he ploughed the field.

lol

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589915 Jan 17, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the democrats to blame, child.
It's just the opposite is true.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589916 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Under the new Obamacare system, old folks might not get any coverage for an illness.
Not true. Pure Propaganda.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589917 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
no
al um in um
No al·u·min·i·um.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589918 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
'twas Urban Cowboy that launched Travolta...
Welcome Back, Kotter.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#589919 Jan 17, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that mean you fear the gun?
I DO trust in God.
I don't foolishly think that God will stop a bullet from entering m brain, though...

I do not fear the guns.
I guess I believe in making my own destiny and until it is my time to die. Nothing is going to take me down, and when that day comes.
Today is a good day to die!
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#589920 Jan 17, 2013
THE SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE DEBATE:

1) A little thought reveals that the objective side of existence is really not separate from the subjective, as we think it is.

2) Take nature and see its forms and phenomena. Using the senses and the sense-influenced mind, we make an inferential study of it as best as our instrumental faculties permit using mathematical or experimental means and we collect a mass of data based on these observations and get them ratified by others or by repeat observations of our own.

3) We then pride ourselves that we've made an "objective" study of a certain natural form, process or phenomenon but our deluded minds fail to notice the significant fact that had we not been in possession of our mental and sense faculties such an "objective" study of nature would not have been possible in the first place and we also forget the limitations of our instrumental parts that're equipped to infer superficial aspects of things, while the essence or the ding-an-sich or the thing-in-itself eludes our senses and mental instruments.

4) Another noteworthy point is this -

Had the substratal unified field of consciousness-energy, of which matter and sentient beings are manifested aspects, been absent, then, in the absence of the noumenon (the substratal unified field of consciousness-energy), how could the phenomenon (universe with its multiple aspects) exist?

5) In a profound sense, the substratal unified field of consciousness-energy can be considered the subjective side of existence, while the universe with its multiplicity of forms/phenomena can be looked upon as the objective side.

6) Not being able to get into the subjective side of nature, we end up making errors or judgement or foolish assertions and remain ignorant about the question of origins of nature and being.

7) No subjective side, no objective side.

8) The objective is the objectivization of the subject.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#589921 Jan 17, 2013
Clementia wrote:
the cow is a goddess, we drink her milk so we are like her children and she is our mother
Well tell your 'mother' to stop farting so much. It's ruining the Earths environment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/clim...
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#589923 Jan 17, 2013
CORRECTION:

6) Not being able to get into the subjective side of nature, we end up making errors OF judgement or foolish assertions and remain ignorant about the question of origins of nature and being.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#589924 Jan 17, 2013
BOTTOM LINE:

The objective is the objectivization of the subject.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 7 min Aura Mytha 8,230
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 32 min UMAKEWORLDPEACEUI... 124,304
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr hojo ono 682,149
Being alone stinks so bad...that even God........ 5 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Gay Sex in Houston (Apr '15) 8 hr John j 18
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 9 hr onemale 286,505
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 hr lil whispers 619,479
More from around the web