The Political Party

[chuckgp]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

fatback wrote:

---

yumpy wrote:

i have/had a great life, phil.

started out pretty rough except the last 15yrs, i guess.  

living beyond my time, is not something i'm partial to.

as for eternal life after these motal coils are shed, that remains to be seen.

still plenty of time to fuck up.

---

I'm glad to hear it.  

I'm not sure things actually get better - I think its just we either mellow or have less ideals to sell out, trash or soil.  Perhaps we just become more accustomed to our lot. 

As Thoreau said (and I relate to) - The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.

---

synchronicity report -- just heard that in the X Files -season 4

[chuckgp]

---

moogerfooger wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

photon9 wrote:
Btw markoh I have not responded to your response a few pages back because it was full of assertions with no supporting evidence, you assuming i know exactly why you believe what you believe (I don't), and other sanctimonious bull crap.

But in essence you only further proved the points in my post with your inelegant, clumsy, and completely unintelligible response. I thank you for that.

---

A couple of obvious pieces of evidence here:

- You are on a thread called "The Reason to Accept Jesus Christ into Your Life".

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

chriatianity

---

just have to lol

[moogerfooger]

---

chuckgp wrote:

---

moogerfooger wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

photon9 wrote:
Btw markoh I have not responded to your response a few pages back because it was full of assertions with no supporting evidence, you assuming i know exactly why you believe what you believe (I don't), and other sanctimonious bull crap.

But in essence you only further proved the points in my post with your inelegant, clumsy, and completely unintelligible response. I thank you for that.

---

A couple of obvious pieces of evidence here:

- You are on a thread called "The Reason to Accept Jesus Christ into Your Life".

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

chriatianity

---

just have to lol

---

LOL -- it not worth fixing 

[Rudolf von Hag…]

Bump in the name of the LORD

[Rudolf von Hag…]

---

yumpy wrote:

---

Rudolf von Hagenwil wrote:

to put it in realation, for you in case you're an American:

Not one American would meet the requirement for the troup of the Holy See,

and some of the dumbest Swiss work for the Holy See, and would die for the Holy See.

---

so they sent some athiest farm boys to the vatican?

i do like swiss miss and the cheese is to die for! 

but the italians excel at cheese. 

---

that is a total Catholic valley where the Swiss Guardists are from, left and right from the valley bottom is goes straight upward 3000 meter, that also prevents the development of the brain.

okay, you're a Gorgonzola Grana Padano Mozarella boy,

nobody puts Swiss cheese on pasta and Lasagne

[fatback]

---

moogerfooger wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

photon9 wrote:
Btw markoh I have not responded to your response a few pages back because it was full of assertions with no supporting evidence, you assuming i know exactly why you believe what you believe (I don't), and other sanctimonious bull crap.

But in essence you only further proved the points in my post with your inelegant, clumsy, and completely unintelligible response. I thank you for that.

---

A couple of obvious pieces of evidence here:

- You are on a thread called "The Reason to Accept Jesus Christ into Your Life".

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

yes, and there aint much. if there was better more compelling evidence we'd all be christians. the truth is chriatianity is no better or truer than any other religion. the christian god is exactly the same as every other god ever described by man, and will suffer the same fate eventually, but go ahead, believe if you must. 

---

I don't think that is true - I'd argue that a known god is no longer god.  And it seems to me that modern democratic society is long past worshiping mere  'mortals'.   For the sake of arguement I would also assert that the ideal of democracy are incompatible with  theological ideals.   Lets take the idea of grace, , ([as] God's gift of salvation granted to sinners for their salvation'  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace) for a moment. 

Democracy suggests that our 'leaders' are only really legitimate in that they reflect the views of the electorate.  Does this view some how change when we consider god?  I would think for most of us the answer is no.  If that is the case most of us would be unlikely to see as grace as being in gods remit in the first place.   And if grace the best that god has to offer (and we refuse his right to bestow it)  - then what reason is there left  for us to follow.    If this is the case for a 'mythical'  deity, how much more would it be for a 'real' god?  

Phil

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

fatback wrote:

---

Bottom line is although there is zero evidence to prove god exists, 

---

And I find that a completely absurd thing to say.  Obviously you understand the distinction between evidence and proof, using both in the same phrase, yet you still claim there is "zero" evidence, a word chosen to suggest precision?  Look, it's patently ridiculous, and when people say ridiculous things, there must be some defect somewhere.

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

moogerfooger wrote:

 

---

yes, and there aint much. if there was better more compelling evidence we'd all be christians. the truth is chriatianity is no better or truer than any other religion.

---

Again, a perfectly ridiculous thing to say.  Just ask that little Pakistani girl that got shot by the Taliban, or some buddhist temple slave.  You can reasonably say you don't find the evidence adequate, but you can't stop yourself, you have to go on and say something silly.  So, I asks, what's going on?  I'm just reading the evidence on full display, no sense anybody getting frustrated with me.

[fatback]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

fatback wrote:

---

Bottom line is although there is zero evidence to prove god exists, 

---

And I find that a completely absurd thing to say.  Obviously you understand the distinction between evidence and proof, using both in the same phrase, yet you still claim there is "zero" evidence, a word chosen to suggest precision?  Look, it's patently ridiculous, and when people say ridiculous things, there must be some defect somewhere.

---

Yes you are right I meant proof - what about the rest?

Phil

[chuckgp]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

fatback wrote:

---

Bottom line is although there is zero evidence to prove god exists, 

---

And I find that a completely absurd thing to say.  Obviously you understand the distinction between evidence and proof, using both in the same phrase, yet you still claim there is "zero" evidence, a word chosen to suggest precision?  Look, it's patently ridiculous, and when people say ridiculous things, there must be some defect somewhere.

---

check any nearby mirrors to see the defect

[moogerfooger]

---

fatback wrote:

---

moogerfooger wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

photon9 wrote:
Btw markoh I have not responded to your response a few pages back because it was full of assertions with no supporting evidence, you assuming i know exactly why you believe what you believe (I don't), and other sanctimonious bull crap.

But in essence you only further proved the points in my post with your inelegant, clumsy, and completely unintelligible response. I thank you for that.

---

A couple of obvious pieces of evidence here:

- You are on a thread called "The Reason to Accept Jesus Christ into Your Life".

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

yes, and there aint much. if there was better more compelling evidence we'd all be christians. the truth is chriatianity is no better or truer than any other religion. the christian god is exactly the same as every other god ever described by man, and will suffer the same fate eventually, but go ahead, believe if you must. 

---

I don't think that is true - I'd argue that a known god is no longer god.  And it seems to me that modern democratic society is long past worshiping mere  'mortals'.   For the sake of arguement I would also assert that the ideal of democracy are incompatible with  theological ideals.   Lets take the idea of grace, , ([as] God's gift of salvation granted to sinners for their salvation'  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace) for a moment. 

Democracy suggests that our 'leaders' are only really legitimate in that they reflect the views of the electorate.  Does this view some how change when we consider god?  I would think for most of us the answer is no.  If that is the case most of us would be unlikely to see as grace as being in gods remit in the first place.   And if grace the best that god has to offer (and we refuse his right to bestow it)  - then what reason is there left  for us to follow.    If this is the case for a 'mythical'  deity, how much more would it be for a 'real' god?  

Phil

---

yea -- that's my argument againts deism. A god with no mythology is no god at all.   the important part of the mythology is perpetuating the mystery. A god we now too much about or too little is hardy worthy of worship. 

[fatback]

err one thing I can't quite understand at the moment......can we still ammend our posts?  if so how?

Phil

[Used2BMarkoh]

---

chuckgp wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

I was a christian too, a christian creationist-literalist, just like you.  Then I realized that mythologyis not evidence, is not supposed to be evidence.

---

And so now you hang out on threads like this?  That is just PATHETIC!  I'm sorry, and it's also pathetic of me to be hanging out here.  This is like some ring of hell where the formerly enlightned shout for all eternity "I know you're not there God!"  So, enough, I think I've had a bit of an epiphany here.

[moogerfooger]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

moogerfooger wrote:

 

---

yes, and there aint much. if there was better more compelling evidence we'd all be christians. the truth is chriatianity is no better or truer than any other religion.

---

Again, a perfectly ridiculous thing to say.  Just ask that little Pakistani girl that got shot by the Taliban, or some buddhist temple slave.  You can reasonably say you don't find the evidence adequate, but you can't stop yourself, you have to go on and say something silly.  So, I asks, what's going on?  I'm just reading the evidence on full display, no sense anybody getting frustrated with me.

---

 I did say that I don't find the evidence adequate. (there aint much --  if there was better more compelling evidence )

you are reading what you want to see.  

Do I have to point out the duchbaggery of some christians to even out the score?  how does the fact that the taliban shot a girl make islam less true than Christianity.    is the Talban a religion now? 

why dont you provide some evidence that christianity is more true than other religions.  

[moogerfooger]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

fatback wrote:

---

Bottom line is although there is zero evidence to prove god exists, 

---

And I find that a completely absurd thing to say.  Obviously you understand the distinction between evidence and proof, using both in the same phrase, yet you still claim there is "zero" evidence, a word chosen to suggest precision?  Look, it's patently ridiculous, and when people say ridiculous things, there must be some defect somewhere.

---

so lets use the Ben franklin approach. and list all the evidence for christianity and all the evidence for lets say, Hinduism and see which comes out on top

[fatback]

No I just re

---

fatback wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

fatback wrote:

---

Bottom line is although there is zero evidence to prove god exists, 

---

And I find that a completely absurd thing to say.  Obviously you understand the distinction between evidence and proof, using both in the same phrase, yet you still claim there is "zero" evidence, a word chosen to suggest precision?  Look, it's patently ridiculous, and when people say ridiculous things, there must be some defect somewhere.

---

Yes you are right I meant proof - what about the rest?

Phil

---

Actually I've just re-read it again - and I did mean evidence (err I think)

I said there is zero evidence to prove god exists, - ie the evidence does not provide proof.  That is different to saying that there is no evidence to support...    So what am I missing something here?

Phil

[moogerfooger]

---

fatback wrote:

err one thing I can't quite understand at the moment......can we still ammend our posts?  if so how?

Phil

---

 click the options button and select edit. 

[fatback]

thanks

[fatback]

but I think I changed my mind

[chuckgp]

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

---

chuckgp wrote:

---

Used2BMarkoh wrote:

- At one time you said you were a Christian.  So you DO know what the evidence for Christianity is.

---

I was a christian too, a christian creationist-literalist, just like you.  Then I realized that mythologyis not evidence, is not supposed to be evidence.

---

And so now you hang out on threads like this?  That is just PATHETIC!  I'm sorry, and it's also pathetic of me to be hanging out here.  This is like some ring of hell where the formerly enlightned shout for all eternity "I know you're not there God!"  So, enough, I think I've had a bit of an epiphany here.

---

you mean you need to leave again??

ahahahaha!

you shouldn't take these little defeats so serious, its a learning thing for you.

that really was a godamn good Nova last night, those globe animations really were fab.  The Sahara fertilizes the Amazon.  Antarctica sends deep brine to the equator.

the machine

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html