Do you believe in God? [modified]
-
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Sorry, I don't see you as a deity, but more of a wise Jedi Master ;P
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
Paul Conrad wrote:
Sorry, I don't see you as a deity, but more of a wise Jedi Master
:laugh: Potayto, potahto.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
Paul Conrad wrote:
Sorry, I don't see you as a deity, but more of a wise Jedi Master
:laugh: Potayto, potahto.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Oooh. I like wild drunken guess, well the wild and drunken bits anyway.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
the wild and drunken bits anyway
[Homer Simpson] Woohoo! :rolleyes:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
I believe you are "Teh." Added: From the quickness of the 1-vote, I can only assume that my belief has been validated.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:16 PM
No way. The Teh misspells every second word. The concept of punctuation is alien to the Teh.
-
Cyon111 wrote:
do you believe in Gods?
Perspx wrote:
No.
Cyon111 wrote:
Cool, me too!
Cyon111 wrote:
I do believe that they exist but they don't deserve our attention!
WTF? You agree that there are no Gods... Then you go on to say that they exist.
Recent blog posts: *SQL Server / Visual Studio install order *Installing SQL Server 2005 on Vista *Crazy Extension Methods Redux * Mixins My Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
WTF? You agree that there are no Gods... Then you go on to say that they exist.
True, he's immediately and obviously self-contradictory. But on the other hand, you foolishly imagine that one logically can simultaneously deny that there exists an actual God and assert that there exist such things as reason, logic, knowledge, truth (that's iffy, on that one you may well demure, as your kind so frequently do), thoughts, purposes, "free will" (also iffy, as your kind deny-when-convenient) and so on. edit: I'm sorry! I thought I was responding to someone else. :doh: What I wrote may apply to you, or it may not: I don't remember whether you're one of these silly play-atheists. Please, if it doesn't apply to you, then forgive me for saying it in the first place. If it does apply to you, then please forgive me for mistakenly saying it (the mistake being twofold).
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
I guess the O.P. is asking if there are any polytheists here.
In the Hebrew language "Elohim" means the Gods. (Eloha is the singular.) It is used a number of times in Genesis, and is deliberately mistranslated in English as if the singular is used. (i.e. Gen 3: 17; Gen 5: 29; Gen 7: 16.) So those who take the bible literally. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
In the Hebrew language "Elohim" means the Gods. (Eloha is the singular.) It is used a number of times in Genesis, and is deliberately mistranslated in English as if the singular is used. (i.e. Gen 3: 17; Gen 5: 29; Gen 7: 16.) So those who take the bible literally. . .
You're so ignorant ... and such a liar (when you're not displaying *mere* ignorance). That 'elohim' is grammatically plural in form (masculine plural, to be more precise) no more means that the word is plural in meaning than does the fact that 'betulim' is grammatically masculine plural in form mean that the word is plural ... or "masculine" ... in meaning. 'betulah' is feminine singular; it means "a virgin;" its plural would be 'betulot' 'betulim' is masculine plural; it means "virginity" 'elohim' likewise is masculine plural -- it does not actually mean "God" or even "gods" (no more than the English word 'god' is actually the name of The Living God); its meaning is closer to the English "majesty" or "majestic-ness" and "exaltation" and "lofty" or "loftiness" than to the English word "god" ... which is why it was also used to denote judges/magistrates. And ghosts. So, to call someone 'elohim' is to call him "Lofty/Exalted/Majestic One;" it is not necessarily to call him "God." To call a plurality of persons 'elohim' is to call them "Lofty/Exalted/Majestic Ones;" it is not necessarily to call them "gods." Context matters!
modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:43 PM
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Gods? Plural!
I guess the O.P. is asking if there are any polytheists here.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Cyon111 wrote:
I rather believe in myself!
You need to wake up and smell the daisy's! I've only been exposed to "the real world" for the last two years... and i was shocked to find out how many atheists there are around me, it actually makes me sick... even some of my friends "believe in themselves", if u ask me they believe in "science", which alot of it is a fucking religion in itself(the big bang and the big squish and the big spin and all that)! Half the crap they teach in school level science is given as fact, but it cant be proven in front of you like gravity and electricity can be proven and shown... Things like the age of the earth... IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all...
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111Harvey Saayman wrote:
IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all ...
You're on the right track, certainly: though, it's no longer *actual* science we're talking talking about when we speak of 'atheists' (I generally put the word in quotes because most self-proclamed atheists are just poseurs at it) and their worshipful attitude toward the goddess "Science." You're also very much on the right track in speaking of "people too blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all." If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist! These, and other equally absurd things, logically and inescapably follow from denying that there is a Creator-God. One can even find prominent 'atheists' admitting to these things ... and moments later behaving as though these things-which-cannot-be are! Pure and simple: atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.
-
The JZ wrote:
"I would believe only in a god who could dance
Pan and Apollo were both pretty good and Terpsichore was perfect.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How, for example, would you prove that Caligula was a Roman emperor?
A very nice analogy. There's physical evidence due to the passage of time, but the indirect evidence is overwhelming. I'll have to remember that one.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
MidwestLimey wrote:
Ravel H. Joyce: How, for example, would you prove that Caligula was a Roman emperor? MidwestLimey: A very nice analogy.
Mr Joyce stole the question ... from Christian apologetics ... and he apparently doesn't *really* understand the point(s) of it. Either that, or he's intellectually dishonest, for his favorite method of "argumentation" is to assert the scientism/positivism and empiricism such a question shows to be absurd.
-
Oakman wrote:
Pan and Apollo were both pretty good and Terpsichore was perfect.
But the One God, the Only God, the Living God, is "Lord of the Dance[^]."
-
Harvey Saayman wrote:
IMO science is the religion of atheists, people to blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all ...
You're on the right track, certainly: though, it's no longer *actual* science we're talking talking about when we speak of 'atheists' (I generally put the word in quotes because most self-proclamed atheists are just poseurs at it) and their worshipful attitude toward the goddess "Science." You're also very much on the right track in speaking of "people too blind to see whats right in front of their faces! We didnt just happen, there has to be a creator behind it all." If atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then certain truths logically and inescapably follow. Among them are (non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, except for the last): 1) We cannot know truth from non-truth 2) We cannot reason 3) We cannot know *anything* 4) We are not "conscious" (i.e. consciousness in an "illusion" -- though, even the atheists honest enough to admit that this follows from atheism never quite get around to explaining *who* is having the illusion) 5) We do not and cannot chose our actions (i.e. we exhibit 'behaviors,' we do not 'act') ... n) There are no such things as 'minds' ... which is to say, the 'atheist' logically must assert that he himself does not exist! These, and other equally absurd things, logically and inescapably follow from denying that there is a Creator-God. One can even find prominent 'atheists' admitting to these things ... and moments later behaving as though these things-which-cannot-be are! Pure and simple: atheism is mental disorder, willfully entered into.
Ilíon wrote:
certain truths logically and inescapably follow
Then why don't you logically prove them? (Inescapably would be redundant if you could do this, it is a waste of bandwidth since you cannot.) Using big words when small ones will do is the sign not of an education, but of a poser.
-
This is a stupid fucking question. Religion has been beat to death here. If you can't find something more interesting to post, don't post at all. By the way, fix your profile so it shows your real country of origin.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
This is a stupid fucking question.
So, it's right up your alley? The fellow has silly opinions, certainly. But then, so do you. The fellow gives no indication of being open to assessing the silliness of his opinions. But then, neither do you.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Religion has been beat to death here.
Asserts who? On what authority? Why should anyone imagine you're speaking the truth, much less that you have any idea what you're talking about? Let's try to be honest here (doubtless a real stretch for you), what you really mean is: "John Simmons, asshat programmer, doesn't want to think about God ... and doesn't want anyone else to do so, either."
John Simmons / asshat programmer wrote:
If you can't find something more interesting to post, don't post at all.
Would that not be some very good advice for you to take?
-
Ilíon wrote:
certain truths logically and inescapably follow
Then why don't you logically prove them? (Inescapably would be redundant if you could do this, it is a waste of bandwidth since you cannot.) Using big words when small ones will do is the sign not of an education, but of a poser.
-
Ilíon wrote:
But the One God, the Only God, the Living God, is "Lord of the Dance
Michael Flatley is good, but he's not that good.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Science doesn't even come close to being a religion. Religion demands trusting devotion, science basically says, "Don't believe us? Well, you can find out for yourself!"
Science says that at some point in time, all the matter in the universe came together in a small "dot", spun faster and faster and galexys or what ever you want to call it "broke of" and thats where everything comes from. My religion says God created the heaven and the earth. Neither can be proven but there are people who believe in God, and others who believe in the big bang. therefore BOTH ARE RELIGIONS!
Harvey Saayman - South Africa Junior Developer .Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111Harvey Saayman wrote:
Science says that ... My religion says God created the heaven and the earth. Neither can be proven ...
Actually, you've been misinformed ... no doubt by "scientists." We *can* prove that we are created. We can do this by assuming that we are *not* created ... and then watching how quickly all the inescapable absurdities start piling up. Since the absurdities logically, inescapably, follow from the initial assumption, we *know* that the initial assumption is false. Therefore, we *know* that it is not true that we are not created, but rather that it is true that we are created. edit: By the way, one absurdity inescapably following from the initial assumption is sufficient to refute it. This particular assumption just happens to to churn out absurdities.
modified on Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:01 PM
-
No way. The Teh misspells every second word. The concept of punctuation is alien to the Teh.
-
Harvey Saayman wrote:
my point exactly, theory given as fact when is just something that MIGHT be true... just as what i believe(God did it) might be true...
You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You're confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis', 'conjecture', or 'wild drunken guess'.
And you're a fool. And intellectually dishonest. But who's counting? And, you're confusing 'theory' with 'truth.' Also, you're conflating 'wild-ass-absurdity-that-Ravel-H-Joyce-needs-to-believe-to-be-true' with 'theory,' which you then conflate with 'truth.'
-
Shepman wrote:
Ilíon: You're really not into paying attention, are you? Shepman: to you? :laugh:
And yet you keep "reading" and "responding" to my posts (the scare-quotes are necessary). So, it also appears that you're *also* not into thinking-two-steps-ahead. Poor, poor thing.
