Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631170 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a difference between thinking an entire country is flawed versus a portion of the people are flawed.
There's also a difference in someone pointing out the flaws and someone ONLY pointing out the flaws....
Ah, yes, all the patriots who think they need guns for insurrection. Bwahahahaha.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631171 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence that all life came form one life.
Prove that's a fact and not your faith in science.
Go.
That is not in any way part of evolutionary science. You keep repeating the same lies.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631172 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Then provide evidence of this "spranging" into existence the the universe supposedly did.
Then provide evidence that explains how.
Go.
Yeah, dirt and rib people is so much more plausible.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#631173 Jun 19, 2013
Apocalypse666 wrote:
Come on and do it.
Prove there's a god.
Don;t read off scripture or anything like that just prove there's a god.
Have you ever heard of the Kalam cosmological argument? It provides sound evidence for the existence of GOD based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning say that if the premises are true then it logically follows that so too is the conclusion.

For example -

Premise One: All dogs are mammals -True

Premise Two: All mammals have kidneys.-True

Conclusion: Therefore all dogs have kidneys.- True

----------

So here is the Kalam cosmoligcal argument:

Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Premise Two: The universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence

If we use a process of elimination known as 'modus tollens', the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. Which is the definition of God.

A typical Atheist response might be to say 'so what caused god then?'- The Response: Do to the absurdity of the INFINITE regress of causes the cause has to be an UNCAUSED cause.

- Feel free to challenge this argument -
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631174 Jun 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets just cut to the chase here.
My claim is that guns are designed to launch a projectile at high velocity on an intended trajectory, which is easily proven.
Your claim us that guns are designed to kill. Provide evidence for that assertion or drop it.
Why were guns invented?
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631175 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
I am an enemy of the statist.
Your avatar is that of insurrectionists and traitors, racist bastards, and uneducated twits. You wear it well.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631176 Jun 19, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I understand his words better than you.
Quite likely, actually.
Of course. Your magic decoder ring does it for you. Funny how with 40,000 and counting sects and schisms of Christianity no two decoder rings ultimately agree. There is no difference between a god existing and each adherent making up a god that follows its ego exactly.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631177 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Produce a post of mine that supports your assertions .Your opinion counts for squat .
Why, you didn't, traitor hypocrite.
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on what positions you offer the perception is clearly of what I described.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#631178 Jun 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than “methinks”,(also used by many other English-speaking people and much the consternation of several Americans who don’t actually consider it a word) I really don’t think I can accurately quote anything Shakespeare wrote. Not a great fan, too difficult to read.
I love Shakespeare! But we read a lot of Shakespeare when I was in school and learned how to "translate" what he said into modern day English.

Chaucer, on the other hand is MUCH more difficult.

But I imagine you are more familiar with Shakespeare than you might think and I imagine you are familiar with some of the following quotes and their meanings:

"If music be the food of love, play on.

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

The course of true love never did run smooth.

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631179 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
snorrrrreeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
Yep. Another head in the sand traitor.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631180 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relevant to point being made and does not detract from that point.
All aspects of the Federal budget are germane, traitor.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631181 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
I am delighted beyond words that my avatar has reduced you to a raving ,foamimg at the mouth angry little ..girl.
You're trying to insult a woman by calling her a woman. You're not very bright.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631182 Jun 19, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
If something is impossible to both prove or disprove we have to decide given what limited evidence that is available what is the more plausible explanation.That is open to interpretation and more so when influenced by ideologies.
That is not the way the scientific community works, nitwit. There is nothing plausible about Goddidit.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631183 Jun 19, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Idiots who still won't accept that the South LOST.
Had their asses handed to them, those traitorous bastards.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#631184 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has this wonderful filter that prevents things based on ideologies from being accepted, it's the peer review process. Evidence that passes this test is not up for "interpretation," it's just evidence. That is why things like evolution, gravity, and digital electronics all have theories and your god has none.
Nice dream you have there.

Peer review by those indoctrinated in the same logic and approach. Gatekeepers in control of that. A constructed ideology passing as strictly objective. This is evinced by the emotional reaction to creationism or belief that there were supernatural causations of this existence, even in spite of the obvious fact they admit they don't know what caused the Big Bang. Pure objectivity would not allow that exclusion of possibility.

Ideologues in charge of the process.
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631185 Jun 19, 2013
you mad bro wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you ever heard of the Kalam cosmological argument? It provides sound evidence for the existence of GOD based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning say that if the premises are true then it logically follows that so too is the conclusion.
For example -
Premise One: All dogs are mammals -True
Premise Two: All mammals have kidneys.-True
Conclusion: Therefore all dogs have kidneys.- True
----------
So here is the Kalam cosmoligcal argument:
Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
Premise Two: The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence
If we use a process of elimination known as 'modus tollens', the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. Which is the definition of God.
A typical Atheist response might be to say 'so what caused god then?'- The Response: Do to the absurdity of the INFINITE regress of causes the cause has to be an UNCAUSED cause.
- Feel free to challenge this argument -
No, it doesn't. It tries to make up for infinite regress with a classic argument from ignorance. You admit it right at the end. It is presuppositionalist and always presupposes whatever god the presenter has made up in their head. When your god can be replaced with a pink magic unicorn and it doesn't change the "argument", you know it's ridiculous.

Any pre-existing entity/entities that caused the universe do not have to be personal with a mind and will. No reason is given why your personal god needs to be this mover. Oh, and Craig is laughing at the way to the bank at your stupidity.

By Craig:

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.

Fail.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#631186 Jun 19, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>That is not the way the scientific community works, nitwit. There is nothing plausible about Goddidit.
Have you ever heard of the Kalam cosmological argument? It provides sound evidence for the existence of GOD based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning say that if the premises are true then it logically follows that so too is the conclusion.

For example -

Premise One: All dogs are mammals -True

Premise Two: All mammals have kidneys.-True

Conclusion: Therefore all dogs have kidneys.- True

----------

So here is the Kalam cosmoligcal argument:

Premise One: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Premise Two: The universe began to exist

Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause for it's existence

If we use a process of elimination known as 'modus tollens', the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being. Which is the definition of God.

A typical Atheist response might be to say 'so what caused god then?'- The Response: Do to the absurdity of the INFINITE regress of causes the cause has to be an UNCAUSED cause.

- Feel free to challenge this argument -
Huh

North Richland Hills, TX

#631187 Jun 19, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice dream you have there.
Peer review by those indoctrinated in the same logic and approach. Gatekeepers in control of that. A constructed ideology passing as strictly objective. This is evinced by the emotional reaction to creationism or belief that there were supernatural causations of this existence, even in spite of the obvious fact they admit they don't know what caused the Big Bang. Pure objectivity would not allow that exclusion of possibility.
Ideologues in charge of the process.
No, just because the religious crazies do that does not mean the science community does.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#631188 Jun 19, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm not confused at all, you seem to be the one confused.
After all you are huh, and I am Aura.
But who ever said I was rational? I don't believe in god if that's rational. It doesn't mean I wont slice you apart, It means I wont have to pray for forgiveness after I do. I also think science can explain things, though I admit it could never explain why an idiot like you thinks it can rebuke me. As if you even could and as far as I'm concerned you're just a weenie headed liberal and a POS disgrace to all. So go ahead a whine some more about how you hate America is the super power and how Columbia's weapons make you cry.
But it wont matter because when I cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war , your rotting flesh with beg for burial.
I bet you also cried when you outgrew your Batman Underoos.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#631189 Jun 19, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>No, just because the religious crazies do that does not mean the science community does.
"religious crazies"

Uh, would you mind not spraying your saliva all over the internet?

How about a nice street corner with a megaphone?

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
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 min Grau 119,272
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min onemale 263,569
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min confrinting with ... 554,995
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 9 min mike 603,659
Abu dhabi massage for men 0555079516 Alisa 38 min alisa 1
Bull and Boar - an 18th century Welsh tavern. 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 68
Why do BLACK People hate Mexicans so much? (Dec '13) 1 hr truth 932
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr truth 5,435

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE