Atheist Physicists Prove God. Anthropic Principle Fails (Page 11): The F word is simply another word for sex. There's nothing vulgar about it. A court even made a ruling about it.

Little Ball of Hate

Dummy Boy wrote:

Usually, "fuck" is not what the followers of Christ consider nice language and yet you want to discuss the existence of God....please explain that in a non-tongue and cheek fashion.

The F word is simply another word for sex. There's nothing vulgar about it. A court even made a ruling about it.

Gener

PeterS wrote:

Could it also not just mean that Christ has gone to prepare a place for us to dwell in his fathers house--just as he promised? Why make something more complicated than it needs to be...

Not just the Bible but ALL sacred literature from ALL nations is written in allegorical language. There is nothing wrong with the interpretation you are suggesting. But it isn't the whole story. All sacred literature is written on many levels and therefore has many different meanings. One meaning does not overrule the others.

Gener

lindajoy wrote:

The higher the level of consciousness the closer we get to utopia and a perfect oneness, Gener..That simple~ :wink:

That's a good way to put it.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Louie27 wrote:

I did not know you had fur.. I thought was little ball of h**e that had the fur.

That's what I call my back hair.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

The F word is simply another word for sex. There's nothing vulgar about it. A court even made a ruling about it.

...which fucking court was that?

Singularity

PeterS wrote:

Faith in science comes from the ability to prove t***h through scientific method. Faith in god is required because there is no rational proof for god. One is seeing two five dollar bills in someones hand and knowing there is 10 dollars and the other is having faith that the money held in someones hand is 10 dollars even though you can't actually see it.

As for secular humanism being a religion what is it that is worshiped?

Faith actually has little to do with reality as it is only invoked to facilitate belief when belief is illogical because of lack of rational proof. I think the word you are wanting might be confidence in the probability of success due to previous successful attempts, rather than faith.

When you flip a light switch and no light comes from the associated bulb, you don't lament that your faith in technology has been challenged, you change the damn light bulb!

Little Ball of Hate

Dummy Boy wrote:

...which fucking court was that?

The Supreme Court, Dummy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cB6E9Ii--_sC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=fuck+is+not+an+obscenity&source=bl&ots=zw9PCVuZrc&sig=9kpqKheMi6Y16P7zYaGoot2cew8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ6ojvkuHKAhWD7iYKHaUhCOAQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=fuck%20is%20not%20an%20obscenity&f=false

Little Ball of Hate

Singularity wrote:

Faith actually has little to do with reality as it is only invoked to facilitate belief when belief is illogical because of lack of rational proof. I think the word you are wanting might be confidence in the probability of success due to previous successful attempts, rather than faith.

When you flip a light switch and no light comes from the associated bulb, you don't lament that your faith in technology has been challenged, you change the damn light bulb!

Are you saying that faith in a Creator is illogical? I'd love to hear the "logic" behind that. Isn't it equally illogical to believe that the universe just happened on it's own? This is what atheists believe. Then there is the origin of life. Scientists know that information is the result of intelligence. DNA contains vast amounts of information, therefore it is the result of intelligence. There is no other explanation for it.

Singularity

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

Are you saying that faith in a Creator is illogical? I'd love to hear the "logic" behind that. Isn't it equally illogical to believe that the universe just happened on it's own? This is what atheists believe. Then there is the origin of life. Scientists know that information is the result of intelligence. DNA contains vast amounts of information, therefore it is the result of intelligence. There is no other explanation for it.

Explain how it is logical and I will refute it. That's how logical discourse works. A negative assertion cannot be logically proven. The hypothesis must be a positive claim. My response to the claim that God's exist is, "I am not convinced. I do not believe your claim is true."

ConnorShields69 Loc: Here

Sorry, wrong quote.

Singularity

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

Are you saying that faith in a Creator is illogical? I'd love to hear the "logic" behind that. Isn't it equally illogical to believe that the universe just happened on it's own? This is what atheists believe. Then there is the origin of life. Scientists know that information is the result of intelligence. DNA contains vast amounts of information, therefore it is the result of intelligence. There is no other explanation for it.

ATHEISM means believing there is no convincing evidence of God's'' existing. Period.

Atheism is not synonymous with science.

SCIENTISTS systematically observe reality and offer convincing proof and reasonable justifications for asserting some facts as true. They also offer hypotheses and conjectures, and know the difference in these terms.

It is fairly obvious the physical world demonstrably exists. Not so 'for gods.

Singularity

ConnorShields69 wrote:

Peter,

Do you " see" love? Or do you feel, sense and in time know you love...Think your wife here...is that evidence or lack of but in that knowing, trust, and fairh in that love that brings you to wanting to spend the rest of your life with her??

Is that different from loving God? Is that feeling, sense, and in time knowing you love, the same?? Trust in Him, faith in his love of me??

If so, why,...??

Does the feeling one has for a spouse change if the spouse dies, thus no longer exists? Except in memory of imagination? Does your behavior change in regard to a spouse's being no longer a real living person?

Loving something you have not and cannot ever apprehend with the senses seems illogical to me. I suspect PeterS can tell his wife exists.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

The Supreme Court, Dummy.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cB6E9Ii--_sC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=fuck+is+not+an+obscenity&source=bl&ots=zw9PCVuZrc&sig=9kpqKheMi6Y16P7zYaGoot2cew8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiJ6ojvkuHKAhWD7iYKHaUhCOAQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=fuck%20is%20not%20an%20obscenity&f=false

...so you've embraced gay marriage...?

Little Ball of Hate

Dummy Boy wrote:

...so you've embraced gay marriage...?

There are some things the SC has no jurisdiction over. Marriage is one. That should be left to the States.

Little Ball of Hate

Singularity wrote:

ATHEISM means believing there is no convincing evidence of God's'' existing. Period.

Atheism is not synonymous with science.

SCIENTISTS systematically observe reality and offer convincing proof and reasonable justifications for asserting some facts as true. They also offer hypotheses and conjectures, and know the difference in these terms.

It is fairly obvious the physical world demonstrably exists. Not so 'for gods.

But scientists haven't got a clue how or why the universe exists. This is a fact. We also have a historical record, in the Bible. Jesus existed. This is a fact. He claimed to be the Son of God. This is supported by evidence. The Apostle Paul has also been proven to be a historical figure. He had much to write about Jesus, salvation, and many other things. He was a contemporary of the other Apostles, who also wrote about Jesus.