Comments
594,581 - 594,600 of 720,690 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626335
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>Why did they not choose "she" or "her" for god?
How come god can't be a "she"? Or "it"?
Giving god a gender pronoun brings the god down to a human level.
Is god human?
Is god just a facsimile of the human male, specifically, the human WHITE male?
Would god being a black female make your brain blow up?
The Catholics just couldn't fathom picking a pope with black skin.
Also, anyone that "has a father" also has a mother.
Who is Jesus' mother?
Who's vagina did Jesus come out of?
Did god have a penis?
Who got Jesus' mother pregnant?
God is known as the Father, which isn't necessary a male.

But hey, did you call your dad a she?
Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626336
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't prove 1+1=2 so you talk shit.
Wonderful.
RMFE (Rolling my F*cking Eyes)

Are you BLIND?? He just DID!

What's wrong, can't add 1 and 1 together?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626337
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>BULLSH!T!
6-month-old babies DON'T KNOW HOW to be manipulative, let alone know what it means!
You're just coming up with any lame excuse to beat up on babies.
You're a PIG.
Ever see a 6 month (or so) baby lurch in his mother's arms? You know, quickly arch his back and fling his bead back?

Ever seen a 6 month (or so) baby throw her food off of the high chair because it's not ice cream?

When they do those sorts of things, that's manipulation. That's when it needs to be disciplined. No matter at what age.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626338
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>Simple common sense would tell you that the story is nothing more than a magic tale.
Oh....

"Because it makes sense!"

LMAO!

Ok dude, ok.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626339
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>Can't read, huh?
I did answer your question.
"According to YOUR STORY,'All was good and very good'." which means perfect.
Perfect is supposed to be "good", or are you currently residing in Bassackwardsville or something?
Death, war, hate, sickness, and poverty are NOT GOOD THINGS.
Good and perfect are not the same thing.

Very good and good are not the same thing.

Think, Sharkey, think.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626340
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>First explain why it would need to take "anyone" to create things, and who created that "someone".
No.

You claimed that the universe created itself, you explain how or why.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626341
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>RMFE (Rolling my F*cking Eyes)
Are you BLIND?? He just DID!
What's wrong, can't add 1 and 1 together?
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x'= 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y'= x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c'= b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b =(a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1'= 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c'= b, with c in N, and define
a + b =(a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 =(1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 =(1)'= 1'= 2 Q.E.D.
Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626342
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
*waits for some freethinking atheist to bitch at you because they claim one cannot 'believe' in evolution*
*and waits....*
*and waits....*
*and waits....*
You'll be waiting a long time for your phony scenario that will never come true because it's about the evidence for the belief rather than "the belief" itself.

Evolution is more feasible than "poof, god did it".

“Just a very naughty boy.”

Since: Dec 08

Dodge

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626343
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever see a 6 month (or so) baby lurch in his mother's arms? You know, quickly arch his back and fling his bead back?
Ever seen a 6 month (or so) baby throw her food off of the high chair because it's not ice cream?
When they do those sorts of things, that's manipulation. That's when it needs to be disciplined. No matter at what age.
Shouldn't be giving a 6 month old baby ice cream.

That's not manipulation, it's pre-language engagement. A baby will let you know what it wants and when. I don't see why some dumb arse parent who chooses to give their baby ice cream should then discipline them when they request the ice cream in the only way they know how. Damn sugar is addictive stuff dude! In your example the parent would need discipline.
Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626344
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good and perfect are not the same thing.
Very good and good are not the same thing.
Think, Sharkey, think.
Yes they are.

Good = good.

Simple as that.

Perfection is the ultimate good - otherwise we wouldn't strive so hard to be that way.

Death, sickness, poverty, war, and hatred are NOT "perfect".

These are major defects in your "god's creation".

And if you somehow think that defects are a good thing, you DO reside in Bassackwardsville.
Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626345
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x'= 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y'= x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c'= b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b =(a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1'= 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c'= b, with c in N, and define
a + b =(a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 =(1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 =(1)'= 1'= 2 Q.E.D.
Or, you could take 1 apple, not eat it, then get 1 more apple, and see how many you have after you got that other apple.
Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626346
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
You claimed that the universe created itself, you explain how or why.
Nope.

Not until you explain why the universe would NEED anyone "to create it" and WHERE that "someone" came from.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626347
May 25, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you muddying the issue? I did not take issue with justice as an abstract concept, you dolt, I took issue with the concept of public execution and the notion of execution as a just punishment for theft.
It was more then just "theft" that took place at that giving time. If you would read the story you would see that. Achan was a "soldier" who disobeyed a diret order, and not only stole from the enemy, but he stole from God as well. He was guilty for 2 different accounts of theft,as well as disobeying wat God had commanded them to do. He kept the gold and silver and other stuff for himself, that was suppose to have been taken to the Lord's house. In return cause some of his fellow soldiers to be killed by his actions.
I also disagree with the idea of "transferred guilt" whereby, according to your story, the family of the thief was executed with him. You listed these as "legitimate," and you also espoused public execution as a deterrent. Your morality is backwards and barbaric.
Again, NO i did not say that i support public execution,, you LIAR.. This is what i take issue with dimwitt, you are saying i do, and i dont!!!! I said back in those days it was a deterrent
just like the wiki link said it was, because the evidence to prove someone was guilty of a crime that was punishable by stoning was SET AT SUCH A HIGH STANDARD and was almost impossile to acheive.
I did not say that justice, as a concept, is inherently unfair. Those who threaten society need to be prevented from doing so. We can accomplish this goal without becoming animals ourselves, however.
OK,,... So tell us what your form of justice should be giving to GUILTY person in my example i gave you?
It is simply wrong to kill a man for stealing, no matter what your book tells you.
Also, god doesn't exist as far as we know, so no, I don't think he is unfair. I think that your god myths describe situations that could be described as "unfair," however. Or did you think it was reasonable for the family of a thief to be executed for his crimes?
Read the story, like i said it was more then just "theft" that made it justifiable to give that punishment in those days..

You have your right for your opinion, but thats all it is. Just like mine, and my opinion is that GOD is JUST and FAIR in his way of dealing with Sin and circumstances.


Sharkey

Vallejo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626348
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever see a 6 month (or so) baby lurch in his mother's arms? You know, quickly arch his back and fling his bead back?
Ever seen a 6 month (or so) baby throw her food off of the high chair because it's not ice cream?
When they do those sorts of things, that's manipulation. That's when it needs to be disciplined. No matter at what age.
A baby lurching back and flinging his head is not manipulation, and a 6-month old isn't even old enough to be eating ice cream or even sitting up in a high chair.

You're not fooling anyone with this bullsh!t.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626349
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Skitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Shouldn't be giving a 6 month old baby ice cream.
That's not manipulation, it's pre-language engagement. A baby will let you know what it wants and when. I don't see why some dumb arse parent who chooses to give their baby ice cream should then discipline them when they request the ice cream in the only way they know how. Damn sugar is addictive stuff dude! In your example the parent would need discipline.
Please do me a favor, Skitz.

Don't try to talk reason to RR.

“Just a very naughty boy.”

Since: Dec 08

Dodge

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626350
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:
P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x'= 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y'= x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.
Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c'= b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b =(a + c)'.
Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'
2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.
Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2
Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1'= 2 Q.E.D.
Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c'= b, with c in N, and define
a + b =(a + c)'.
You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:
Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 =(1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 =(1)'= 1'= 2 Q.E.D.
It's easier than that mate.

Lets say your at home drinking a cup of tea at home when the door knocks. You look through the spy glass to see a mormon standing there in his ill fitting suit. You think to yourself "Shit a bloody mormon, what could be worse?". When you open the door to tell him to fuck off you realise around the corner there is another one stood there. Now there are Two mormons and you day just got that little bit worse. Twice as worse!

“Just a very naughty boy.”

Since: Dec 08

Dodge

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626351
May 25, 2013
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do me a favor, Skitz.
Don't try to talk reason to RR.
Hey Catcher!

I forget :P

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626352
May 25, 2013
 
Sharkey wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!
No, YOU are the one that is lying, and STILL LYING right now!
YES, you ARE arguing with True Truth about the OT/NT debate, acting like the OT is no longer relevant. Like YOU said YOURSLF: "THEY don't believe...so they are WRONG and DESERVE TO GO TO HELL!"
"NO, God is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. It's people like you that doesnt understand neither the OT or NT..."
You are such a LIAR! If god is the same yesterday, today and forevermore there would BE NO NEED FOR A "NEW" TESTAMANT!! THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WRONG WITH THE OLD ONE!
Like most phony religionists, you have been lying - and lied TO - for so long that lying is your only means of operating.
Your LIES an BULLSH!T is what's going to KILL THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE, AND MASS-MURDERING MONSTERS LIKE YOU NEED TO BE STOPPED.
I WILL NOT ALLOW SCUM LIKE YOU TO WIPE OUT MY FUTURE WITH YOUR BULLSH!T.
you write;
I WILL NOT ALLOW SCUM LIKE YOU TO WIPE OUT MY FUTURE WITH YOUR BULLSH!T

LOL,, wow weeeeee... You are mentally disturbed in every form and fashion of it.

Are you gonna talk them to death on an internet forum called "prove there's a God"???

And how do you suppose you are going to STOP people who IS NOT destorying this world by a belief in God/Jesus in the first place? What you see unfolding in this world of chaos, is what was set in motion at the begining of time, there is NOTHING you or i can do to change that, sharky.. Get a dose of reality dude, you have starved yourself of it for to long..

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626353
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Skitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Catcher!
I forget :P
Welcome back, friend.

“Just a very naughty boy.”

Since: Dec 08

Dodge

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#626354
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Welcome back, friend.
Cheers buddy!

Hope you've been well recently!

Just killing some time :)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

434 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 8 min Aura Mytha 5,233
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min hojo 532,642
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Aura Mytha 224,117
nudist dating question 13 min Christy8623 1
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 21 min NoStress4me 440,828
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 24 min An NFL Fan 115,034
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 31 min Senecus 1,522
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Clearwater 172,345
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 3 hr bbbbbb 73
Does anyone do incest sex with your sister (Apr '12) 10 hr Larry 122
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••