In a world without God...

[Drich]

So you are saying that titles mean nothing. That a title to a book, or a thread, is not intended to give the reader an idea of what is inside? Isn't that a bit dishonest?

Don't judge a book by it's cover or in this case do not judge a thread by it's title is an axiom that says do not prejudge a given text by it's appearance or title.

The only dishonest here is the intelectual dishonesty one participates in when he trys and force this thread or the subject matter of this thread from the OP's intend course, to one of his own making. (What your trying to do now)

No, actually, and going on the question raised in the OP, the discussion was the center around "A world without god". You choose to make it otherwise.

The OP ask or spins the atheist question "If God is omni max then why do bad things happen to good people.?" I ask in your world what is you explaination? Then I ask why could these same reason apply in a world with God.

Again, you can't judge a book by it cover. Just because you want the topic of conversation to follow a predictiable path so you can answer what you think you know, does not mean I am bound to your understanding of how this thread should flow.

Every intellectual endeavor evokes some sort of emotional response, be it amazement, curiosity, or any of a dozen such responses.

Not what I said. I said if the intelectual validity of the answers your are providing HING (Will not work any other way) on the emotion generated by being in a very specific place, then I call your answers into question.

Look at it this way if i said you had to 'feel' the presents of God and the emotion generated by being in The Holy Land or where ever, If and only IF I take you there and explain/plant these feelings in you, as the ONLY way to know of God.. I would be laugh (and rightly so) off of this board. (Que Rythm or FNM)

The fact that these emotions are evoked does not in any way detract from the importance or validity of the intellectual experience.

If that is the case then why not simply present what you have to say and let it stand or fall based solely on content?

Perhaps if you had intellectual experiences outside your own narrow world view, you'd come to understand this very simple concept.

Oh, lawd he dun found me out.

Because you are clearly attempting to make it appear that all the billions of fossils that have been discovered have, by some deviant conspiracy, been manufactured.

Nope. Not what I said. I said I went to the Smithsonian and they told me 2/3's of their display were fake. I also pointed out that stegasaurs that was being posted as proof there could not be a God, was also fake. I am simply trying to invoke thought. To peel back the smoke and mirrors and get you people to think on your own. You all look like a bunch of Dumb A$$es pointing to these fiberglass momuments as definitive proof, and most of you don't even know what is really out there. Because you blindly swallow everything that comes in the 'education' format as truth. Talking about blind faith.

What is wrong with letting people actual see and know or even rattle some foundations to where people at least google search something they though to be absolute proof?

Go into the field with me and I will show you that they are NOT manufactured. Come one, grasshopper. Be a man. what are you afraid of?

Butt rape by some creepy rock guy.
You know my sister was 9 she was almost talked into a van to help a guy look for his puppy with a similar line.

Probably because you are too cowardly to actually read it.

Uneducated remember? Caint read two guud

---

So what would be proof? someone smarter than you telling you that there was a God?

Would you be more likely to believe in something if only you saw it or if everyone in the world saw it?

The fact that I am defending Christianity should answer that question.

---

Again not the arguement.

I asked would president obama standing before you be proof enough of his existance.

Yes, and as I was explaining, the reason for that is that Obama isn't claiming to be a living suspension of everything we know to be true about physical reality. Now, if Obama came to me and claimed to be a wizard we might be having a different conversation.

I guess it depends on where your from. Because a black President does fit that defination around here.

---

Starts with the first word, continues on till the narrative is told.

"IN" would be the first word. You are telling me you can extroplate a date for the word "IN?" What would that date be?