Send a Message
to HipGnosis

Comments

22,451

Joined

Jul 15, 2007

HipGnosis Profile

Recent Posts

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

Sweet. Take note that the degradation of the dialogue began right here. And here's one for you, in keepin' with the situation: https://www.youtub e.com/watch?v=fHC0 5_9b0gw  (Thursday | post #46)

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

lightbeamer: God did it! ordinary average guy: Cool! How did you know? lightbeamer: Prove I'm wrong! ordinary average guy: eh!?! But you just said........ It doesn't work that way, moonbeam. I didn't make the assertion, merely asked for the proof promised in the assertion of the title, and now in your unequivocal statements. I already gave my response to the Questions Yet To Be Answered - Once there were things we didn't know, and attributed the uncertainty to a god or gods. Now we know better about those things, but there are still things we don't know. Perhaps we'll figure them out, perhaps we won't, but there's no scientific evidence to support just stuffing the knowledge gap with more gods. When I or anyone start a thread titled, "There Is No Proof For God's Existence", then you can make your challenge. In this case, you're making the assertion, you back it upThe cerebellumOk, now you're just throwing stuff against the wall, ain't ya? The source of information would be.........informa tionA combination of an innate sense of self-interest and an external necessity to co-exist with others results in agreed-upon but subjective "codes" of behavior. If you were the only human in existence, there would be no need of a "right vs wrong".  (Thursday | post #45)

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

Really? Did I introduce the topic and call it "Scientific Proof for God's existence"? I and others came here eagerly anticipating that proof we've all been looking for since the dawn of man, to be finally revealed right here in TopixLand. All we got was the same ol, "Goddunnit! " and "Prove it didn't!" What a gyp......  (Thursday | post #42)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

Interesting you mention "Tea Party". Did those old school protestors have the right to dump perfectly good tea in the harbor? Didn't they infringe on the "rights" of others? Did they believe they had a good cause? Did they believe that it was necessary to inconvenience the complacent to bring the issue to the forefront? Your "bridges and tunnels" has a recent precedent as well. Why did marchers think it necessary to obstruct the Edmund Pettis bridge a few years ago? Were people inconvenienced? Was it necessary to bring the issue to people's attention? Were the authorities right to trample and stampede those marchers for publicly expressing their grievances? Was the modern Tea Party right for setting up on an overpass and train their sights on people below? Did that infringe on their rights? Funny thing though - I don't recall the police bringing Army surplus gear to settle that protest. Imagine that - protestors are hiding behind barricades and pointing their scoped weapons right at police, and no one was arrested, much less tear-gassed. What do you think was the difference there? I also think the Brown case was a shaky spot to plant a flag, but I also don't know what the community history was with police. It was obviously bigger and longer than that incident. That incident merely blew the lid off a pot that had been simmering for a long time. It doesn't matter whether you or I think the protestors should be taken seriously or not. We were not the ones with a grievance, which has a right to be heard, and sometimes by whatever means necessary. I support your right to non-violent protest and even civil disobedience if necessary. I support their right equally, regardless of what I think of the particulars. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that gives me or you the right to veto someone else's protest just because we don't think it's "relevant ". You dismiss the Brown case out of hand, but can't do so so easily with Garner. So, your strategy instead is to try and divert it onto a subjective "bigger issue of black male violence". Garner was not being violent so that's absurd. That's merely a different strategy for dismissing the issue.  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184271)

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

There was a time when we might have asked these with the same finality: "Who or what caused the illness Grampa died from?' "Who or what created that wind that blew the hut down?" "Who or what keeps that bird from falling from the sky?" "Who or what keeps us from flying off into space?" "Who or what causes that big fireball that moves across the sky every day?" "Who or what caused that fireball to hide yesterday for a while?" At one time, the answer to each of these would have been a certain, "God - or the gods - done it." Each one of these could be an argument stopper, because we didn't yet know the correct answer. We now know the precise answer to each one, and what's more, the corollary knowledge gained therefrom has been of immense utility to mankind. All you've done is reached for the modern equivalent - a question that has yet to be answered. We have no reason or precedent to assume we won't find out someday. Filling the gap with a god may be emotionally comforting for some, but serves absolutely nothing of utility to mankind.  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #39)

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

Do you understand precisely how your TV snatches an electromagnetic wave from the air and converts it into a realistic moving and talking picture in your living room? Should we study it until we figure it out or take the lazy route and just assume God does it?  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #38)

Top Stories

Scientific proof for God's existence

False advertising. Your title purports to offer scientific proof, yet your proof basically says, "I don't know how this happened so God done it!" You might want to investigate what "proof" means. Just sayin'....  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #37)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

Police are not "heroes" just because they're police. Soldiers are not "heroes" just because they're soldiers. But protestors are patriots, by definition, when they protest. Says so right in the Bill Of Rights and affirmed by ol' TJ himself.  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184265)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

Eric Garner's daughter, while a protestor, called for peace. Betcha never saw her on Sound-Bite Cable News. How much violence is she responsible for as a protestor?  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184264)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

So do you agree that Obama and Blasio are responsible for the murders? It's a fair question, because you've come down on both sides of the question in a remarkably short amount of time. And if the President is responsible for "setting a tone", why is that he's been continually upbeat about the country in general, and yet you, and many, speak of little but gloom and doom for the nation? Let the Tennessee Two-step begin.......  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184263)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

You made a cause/effect connection. Therefore my question has a direct relationshipWhat official "policy" is that, specifically? I love these "predictions ". It might be interesting to go back 8 years and catalog all the "predictions " we've see just in this forum. I can recall quite a few of them. How d'ya think they panned out? The great thing about predictions is you get all the angst and outrage without any of it having to be true. Ever. The second great thing is you're never held accountable for your failed predictions. Let me guess - you're a weatherman? Economist? Media entertainer?  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184261)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

Collective was obvious in context, so you obviously have an agenda by pretending to be uncertain. It seems like the next logical step to your last point would be to answer your own question. After you sort that out for yourself, I ask again, Should the right of protest be infringed due to the fear that some few may act irresponsibly under the guise of the protest? Should all protestors be painted with the brush of those few? In asking those questions, I offered the Vegas cop-killing as a balance to the NY murders, to sort out those whose views on civil liberty are "colored " by race and ideology, from those who truly believe in the liberties proscribed by the Bill Of Rights. Where you at?  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184259)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

“James Bond is a total concept put together by Ian Fleming,” Limbaugh said. “He was white and Scottish, period. That is who James Bond is.” Rush Limbaugh protesting the selection of Idris Elba for the next Bond movie. Uh, Rush? Bond hasn't been Scottish since Sean Connery. So that just leaves "white". Rush, you just don't know when to shut up. I guess you gotta sort thru a lot of trash to fill up a daily radio program. This reminds me of you thinking it necessary to claiming Donovan McNabb was popular just because he was black. I can't imagine how many trash bags you had to rip open to find a school fight between a black boy and a white boy and claiming, "This is what Obama nation looks like." Nah, Rush you're not racist. You don't see things in terms of color. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying you are a great entertainer in your field, and you know how to give your audience exactly what they want.  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184256)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

The question is, is it right to blame anyone but the one who committed the crime? In the past few days we've seen it said that Blasio, Holder, Obama, Sharpton, the protestors, and "liberals " in general are somehow complicit in the acts of violence committed by a relative few, whether it be looting, riots, or murder. Each one has been named specifically, with words to the effect that "blood is on their hands". Video cameras have been pointed almost exclusively at the burning vehicle, or the broken shop window, which makes great footage, while ignoring the fact that literally >thousands of people< had nothing to do with the violence, besides protesting. Do emotionally-charge d protests against the government or government officials contribute to an atmosphere which the criminally deranged will use as cover for their acts? Undeniably. Does this mean the citizen shouldn't be able to protest what they see as government over-reach, because it might stir up the wrong element? If so, welcome to Tienanmen Square. Unfortunately, excess is one of the prices of freedom we claim to love so much. Defending Liberty is a dirty business. My point to you specifically is this: If what you say above is truly how you feel, then don't add your voice to those who blame leaders and protestors for the acts of the criminal few.  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184255)

Top Stories

Bush is a hero

Are the Bundy Ranch protestors responsible for the two Vegas cops killed and wrapped in Tea Party flags last June? Just wondering how consistent people are about this cause/effect argument they're straining to make......  (Wednesday Dec 24 | post #184251)

Q & A with HipGnosis

Headline:

The future begins

Hometown:

every moment

Neighborhood:

Pangea

Local Favorites:

ho'made pie

I Belong To:

the Lollipop Guild

When I'm Not on Topix:

message runner for the French Underground

Read My Forum Posts Because:

there's a prize in every box

I'm Listening To:

Hymns At The Whiskey-A-Go-Go

Read This Book:

The Grapes Of Wrath; The Age of Reason; Go Dog Go

Favorite Things:

old dogs, kids, and watermelon wine

On My Mind:

All the bridge-builders and firemen out there a-pluggin away

I Believe In:

The Gilded Rule 1. Treat as you would be treated. 2. Reciprocate as you are treated. 3. Return directly to #1.