Originally posted by reader1107 Well, since everyone here plays chess better than I do, it only stands to reason that they're all much more intelligent than I am and they understand your second sentence. I don't. WHAT is a justification of God's wrongs through other people, and WHAT are those wrongs, and WHO are those other people? You can only claim that God is responsible for the w ...[text shortened]... ow? Or are you trying to say something else? Or are you just lonely and bored tonight?
Believe me, If they are they are better in chess then you, that dosnt mean they are more intelligent.
Originally posted by windmill i once had some sort of respect here but those days are now gone.i see now that it isn't really about helping people at all but a justification of god's own wrongs through other people.kind of look forward to the day when god realises what the actual problem stems from.it stems from you god because you have a need to justify your own perfection every which ...[text shortened]... don't try to give the impression you are all high and mighty.go your pit where you belong.
by hating him you admit he exists. THAT is where you're wrong!
Originally posted by windmill i once had some sort of respect here but those days are now gone.i see now that it isn't really about helping people at all but a justification of god's own wrongs through other people.kind of look forward to the day when god realises what the actual problem stems from.it stems from you god because you have a need to justify your own perfection every which ...[text shortened]... don't try to give the impression you are all high and mighty.go your pit where you belong.
Originally posted by Bromage by hating him you admit he exists. THAT is where you're wrong!
Great. Then it would be no problem for you to prove the non-existence of God. Thanks in advance for what I expect would be ground-breaking masterpiece in eloquent philosophy backed by incisive scientific data. I hope you don't disappoint.
Originally posted by Halitose Great. Then it would be no problem for you to prove the non-existence of God. Thanks in advance for what I expect would be ground-breaking masterpiece in eloquent philosophy backed by incisive scientific data. I hope you don't disappoint.
He doesn't have to prove God's non-existence; he is not wasting his life believing in God.
I assume it would be no problem for you to prove the existence of God, and validate your time spent worshipping him.
Originally posted by The Chess Express [b]originally posted by The Chess express So living life to the fullest means attacking theists on internet forums.
This is what you do. If you consider attacking people to be helping them then why do you consider what I said an attack?[/b]
The googly eyes implies my stupidity.
You are a typical Xstian - pretending to be a good person, whilst all the time being a smug, superior (imagined), snide little misguided pillock.
Originally posted by howardgee He doesn't have to prove God's non-existence; he is not wasting his life believing in God.
I assume it would be no problem for you to prove the existence of God, and validate your time spent worshipping him.
Don't worry - I won't hold my breath.
I guess the irony is wasted on you that contrary to Bromage (who asserts the absence of God), I don't run around telling people that they must believe in a god, ergo I don't need to back up any claims as I didn't make any. For me the presence of a "Divine Being" is a foregone conclusion -- I don't waste my time debating the inenarrable.
Originally posted by Halitose I guess the irony is wasted on you that contrary to Bromage (who asserts the absence of God), I don't run around telling people that they [b]must believe in a god, ergo I don't need to back up any claims as I didn't make any. For me the presence of a "Divine Being" is a foregone conclusion -- I don't waste my time debating the inenarrable.[/b]
Inenarrable?!? (Pulls the really big dictionary off the shelf for this one...) Ah ha! Can hardly wait to use that one now; been getting bored with ineffable you know...
Originally posted by Halitose I guess the irony is wasted on you that contrary to Bromage (who asserts the absence of God), I don't run around telling people that they [b]must believe in a god, ergo I don't need to back up any claims as I didn't make any. For me the presence of a "Divine Being" is a foregone conclusion -- I don't waste my time debating the inenarrable.[/b]
"For me the presence of a "Divine Being" is a foregone conclusion"
..herein lies the crux of your problem.
The existence of your god is just a matter of blind faith...and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever would persuade you that you are mistaken.
Such beliefs without foundation in experience are the most dangerous. This is because when 2 people have such types of unsubstantiated beliefs which happen to oppose each other, then they have absolutely no recourse to settle the dispute other than by destroying the other person. There is no reference point, no possible objective way of demonstrating the veracity of the either person's claim.
Originally posted by vistesd [b]Inenarrable?!? (Pulls the really big dictionary off the shelf for this one...) Ah ha! Can hardly wait to use that one now; been getting bored with ineffable you know...
Originally posted by howardgee "For me the presence of a "Divine Being" is a foregone conclusion"
..herein lies the crux of your problem.
The existence of your god is just a matter of blind faith...and NO EVIDENCE whatsoever would persuade you that you are mistaken.
Such beliefs without foundation in experience are the most dangerous. This is because when 2 people have such ty ...[text shortened]... ing the veracity of the either person's claim.
This is why religion causes so many wars.
Why should there be a need to settle the dispute? It is when you combine theology with politics that such a potent mix is generated.
Also, your post incorrectly assumes that humans would freely exist without experiencing the transcendental (a term I use quite loosely).
Originally posted by howardgee The googly eyes implies my stupidity.
You are a typical Xstian - pretending to be a good person, whilst all the time being a smug, superior (imagined), snide little misguided pillock.
Hang on a sec. Christians can't be smug?
Only non-Christians are superior (imagined)?
Snide-ness is the domain of the heathen?
Misguided pillocky is the monopoly of the unaffiliated?
Sounds a bit discriminatory in your world.
29 Jan '06 19:181 edit
i hate god.
Back to Top