Atheism

[Haipule]

He will just keep dodging defining the supernatural because as long as it remain vague he can just assert shit .

Don't go into a tizzy Tiz I think Succubus was wrong. Roadrunner was being very specific and not "vague". But, I do think Roadrunner should use the word "preternatural" because that is exactly what he describes.

[Amarok]

Don't go into a tizzy Tiz  I think Succubus was wrong. Roadrunner was being very specific and not "vague". But, I do think Roadrunner should use the word "preternatural" because that is exactly what he describes.

No he hasn't he's been vague as hell .And no Succubus was not wrong .

[Angrboda]

. . . nature is a crack whore.

Perhaps so.

But when the sun hits her just right, or when she looks at me in the moonlight, well -- by God! -- crack whore or not . . . I'd do her.

[Succubus]

He will just keep dodging defining the supernatural because as long as it remain vague he can just assert shit .

Don't go into a tizzy Tiz I think Succubus was wrong. Roadrunner was being very specific and not "vague". But, I do think Roadrunner should use the word "preternatural" because that is exactly what he describes.

For RoadRunner to be specific means he tweaks the master template from which all his posts are formed. There my well be a few decent seedlings in the pile but I'm fucked if I'm wading through all the compost to find them.

In short; he types too much.

---

As a Christian, I do NOT believe in the "supernatural". I do not trust that God is "supernatural". I believe that God is preternatural. Natural yes, but, really, really hard to explain. I do not believe that God operates beyond nature.

Bizarre, unexplainable events are just that: unexplainable but they are not unnatural or unknowable.

I think that the more we understand that mother nature is a field of many things in interplay the more we will understand her true nature. For now we have many opposing theories and nature is a crack whore.

The thirteen thousand definitions of 'god'. Book three, volume thirty.

The god you have just failed to define is not the god of Christianity.

My highlight.

[Haipule]

Perhaps so.

But when the sun hits her just right, or when she looks at me in the moonlight, well -- by God! -- crack whore or not . . . I'd do her.

I love you! You are so precious. You are so beautiful. Beauty is as unique, and rare, as you are. 

Yet they say, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Yet, every time you open your mouth: I fall in love! I'm pretty sure it's not just me!

Excuse me for being natural but, I would do you in a heartbeat that I would pray: lasts forever!

---

Don't go into a tizzy Tiz I think Succubus was wrong. Roadrunner was being very specific and not "vague". But, I do think Roadrunner should use the word "preternatural" because that is exactly what he describes.

For RoadRunner to be specific means he tweaks the master template from which all his posts are formed. There my well be a few decent seedlings in the pile but I'm fucked if I'm wading through all the compost to find them.

In short; he types too much.

---

As a Christian, I do NOT believe in the "supernatural". I do not trust that God is "supernatural". I believe that God is preternatural. Natural yes, but, really, really hard to explain. I do not believe that God operates beyond nature.

Bizarre, unexplainable events are just that: unexplainable but they are not unnatural or unknowable.

I think that the more we understand that mother nature is a field of many things in interplay the more we will understand her true nature. For now we have many opposing theories and nature is a crack whore.

The thirteen thousand definitions of 'god'. Book three, volume thirty.

The god you have just failed to define is not the god of Christianity.

My highlight.

Succubus! Its been awhile! You are well respected on this forum for good reason. You challenge ideas without being a complete, know it all, jerk! 


This forum is wrought with complete, know it all, jerks! Maybe, I am the most guilty! I know that I will never grow-up! A 25yr old associate recently told me that, "You are the worlds oldest child!" My wife will swear to you that I am 12 who once attempted to be 14 and failed!


Fuck dude! If I keep on harping that the universe exists because God commanded it to exist out of what Nikola Tesla called, "the aether/ether", which is supported by Scripture and science, then: how is that so different from the "Big Bang Theory"? 

What came first: the chicken, or the egg? The cause? Or the effect? Whether we're talking about a command or a bang, it is still a cause that is not in complete disagreement. Therefore, why do we argue about a supposed effects as if they are theistic or atheistic?


It makes absolutely no differences to nature whether or not anyone believes in God or atoms! NONE! Nature does NOT care!

[Succubus]

Succubus! Its been awhile! You are well respected on this forum for good reason. You challenge ideas without being a complete, know it all, jerk! 


This forum is wrought with complete, know it all, jerks! Maybe, I am the most guilty! I know that I will never grow-up! A 25yr old associate recently told me that, "You are the worlds oldest child!" My wife will swear to you that I am 12 who once attempted to be 14 and failed!


Fuck dude! If I keep on harping that the universe exists because God commanded it to exist out of what Nikola Tesla called, "the aether/ether", which is supported by Scripture and science, then: how is that so different from the "Big Bang Theory"? 

What came first: the chicken, or the egg? The cause? Or the effect? Whether we're talking about a command or a bang, it is still a cause that is not in complete disagreement. Therefore, why do we argue about a supposed effects as if they are theistic or atheistic?


It makes absolutely no differences to nature whether or not anyone believes in God or atoms! NONE! Nature does NOT care!

Haipule, I wish you well and I mean that sincerely.

[I_am_not_mafia]

If I keep on harping that the universe exists because God commanded it to exist out of what Nikola Tesla called, "the aether/ether", which is supported by Scripture and science,

Not supported by science for at least 100 years.

Whether we're talking about a command or a bang, it is still a cause that is not in complete disagreement.

No, cause is a word that allows for a lot of equivocation and arbitrarily represents the arrow of time as a series of discrete steps.

It would be far better to describe it as an ongoing process.

[Haipule]

If I keep on harping that the universe exists because God commanded it to exist out of what Nikola Tesla called, "the aether/ether", which is supported by Scripture and science,

Not supported by science for at least 100 years.

Whether we're talking about a command or a bang, it is still a cause that is not in complete disagreement.

No, cause is a word that allows for a lot of equivocation and arbitrarily represents the arrow of time as a series of discrete steps.

It would be far better to describe it as an ongoing process.

Yes, GIRLFRIEND! Not many of you understand my girlfriend, Mathilda. I love her and she loves me! Regardless if she admits it, or not!

She !!!!DEMANDS!!!! me always to be "Haipule". She wishes ALWAYS to be proud of me. No one, including me, has any authority, according to her, to be a useless prick! Especially her lover, which is me!


As her lover, I say this to her: Cause is not up for debate here with me. Effect is our known existence. Therefore, you can only prove the existence of the God promised life. However, any lack there of: proves nothing!

God is love and I love you. In fact, I admire you! God didn't teach me how to do that--you did! It ain't hard! Well it is: we'll save that for another day!

[Mister Agenda]

All it would take is a group of people each year that became Christians from other cultures. The tremendous growth of Christianity in China is a single example that wipes out this theory.

That's utter garbage that you should be ashamed of posting. People converting to Christianity is no more significant than people converting to Islam. It's a sign of effective proselytization, nothing else. It's a fact that people convert to religions you would consider nearly meritless. It's a fact that people convert FROM Christianity. If Christianity was the only religion able to gain converts, that would at least be interesting. Doubling the percentage of PRC Christians from 2.3% of the population to 4.6% would not exactly take my breath away.

Christianity: The true religion because it invests more in proselytization. Sheesh!

Now if millions of people started converting to Christianity from other cultures without ever seeing a Bible or hearing from a missionary, that would be interesting.

[SteveII]

All it would take is a group of people each year that became Christians from other cultures. The tremendous growth of Christianity in China is a single example that wipes out this theory.

That's utter garbage that you should be ashamed of posting. People converting to Christianity is no more significant than people converting to Islam. It's a sign of effective proselytization, nothing else. It's a fact that people convert to religions you would consider nearly meritless. It's a fact that people convert FROM Christianity. If Christianity was the only religion able to gain converts, that would at least be interesting. Doubling the percentage of PRC Christians from 2.3% of the population to 4.6% would not exactly take my breath away.

Christianity: The true religion because it invests more in proselytization. Sheesh!

Now if millions of people started converting to Christianity from other cultures without ever seeing a Bible or hearing from a missionary, that would be interesting.

Pay attention. The claim was that the type of religious experiences were largely determined by CULTURE. A defeater for that is any large conversion of people from another culture. I have such a defeater: CHINA.