Official Atheist/Non-Believer Appreciation Thread. Vol. Yes we exist

[sonunox34]

The last few posts remind me of the FlyingSpaghetti Monster.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

I will be brief...

Originally Posted by Kicktionair

Im saying if I haven't seen it I really can't believe it...proof must be shown with the claim

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by untouchable jc

Jesus is the only way to eternal life... Good luck if you don't make the choice

Say word? He told you this himself?

Originally Posted by DMoney82

God who?

Originally Posted by SoCalBoy23

god is just an imaginary friend for grown-ups

Originally Posted by J Dilla Himself

And i realized that god doesnt really exist... i also know theres no such thing as a god...

Originally Posted by Nike Star Jay

i'm not talking about a book written by hundreds of different authors that's been revised and reworded throughout the times. i'm asking if you have a reliable human source that was in contact with god or jesus, or a letter addressed to you personally by either of them, or if they even told you themselves.

Originally Posted by Nike Star Jay

i'm just having to laugh because blind faith is so ridiculous. it's like, "let's worship this invisible god". you never see him, hear him, or feel him... you believe you know his point of views and the way he believes you should live your life, yet you haven't heard him say it his self...

Originally Posted by Nike Star Jay


i can't speak for other atheists, but i have a pretty much general argument (or reason) as to why i choose not to lead a religious lifestyle. i know that i don't want to believe and worship any deity without first having proof he/she/it exists...

The quoted statements above, made by some of my NT brethren, highlight a trend of logic I have come to notice amongst so-called "non-believers".

Essentially, what this logic proposes and champions, is the rational that, "if I can't sense God, then He clearly must not exist". In other words, "if I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, then He is clearly fiction"; after all, the very concept that is "evidence", and the manifestation of said "evidence", derives from our ability--as sentient beings--to "sense" things.

So in connecting the dots, we arrive at a line of thinking that is central to the atheistic argument--and that is, the opinion that "if I can't sense (see, hear, touch, smell, or taste) God directly, then there is no evidence for Him, and if there is no evidence for Him, then He doesn't exist."


***


Now if only y'all could actually see just how faulty and defective that line of thinking is, y'all would realize just how baseless y'all whole argument against the existence of God is.

And to prove my point, I ask y'all this-- "What exactly is AIR"--you know, that thing we "supposedly" breathe in.

We can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; simply stated, we can't sense it directly so why do YOU believe in it (and I KNOW YOU DO). As previously stated, our conception of "evidence" is based off our ability to sense something, and the "lack of evidence" comes about from an inability to sense something. So if we can't sense AIR, then implicitly, there cannot be such a thing as evidence for AIR--and yet, I am quite confident you believe in this thing called AIR correct?

...

terrible argument antigen.

just say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" and keep it moving. we hear, taste, feel, and in some instances see air.

poor argument.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

The quoted statements above, made by some of my NT brethren, highlight a trend of logic I have come to notice amongst so-called "non-believers".

Essentially, what this logic proposes and champions, is the rational that, "if I can't sense God, then He clearly must not exist". In other words, "if I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, then He is clearly fiction"; after all, the very concept that is "evidence", and the manifestation of said "evidence", derives from our ability--as sentient beings--to "sense" things.

So in connecting the dots, we arrive at a line of thinking that is central to the atheistic argument--and that is, the opinion that "if I can't sense (see, hear, touch, smell, or taste) God directly, then there is no evidence for Him, and if there is no evidence for Him, then He doesn't exist."


***


Now if only y'all could actually see just how faulty and defective that line of thinking is, y'all would realize just how baseless y'all whole argument against the existence of God is.

And to prove my point, I ask y'all this-- "What exactly is AIR"--you know, that thing we "supposedly" breathe in.

We can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; simply stated, we can't sense it directly so why do YOU believe in it (and I KNOW YOU DO). As previously stated, our conception of "evidence" is based off our ability to sense something, and the "lack of evidence" comes about from an inability to sense something. So if we can't sense AIR, then implicitly, there cannot be such a thing as evidence for AIR--and yet, I am quite confident you believe in this thing called AIR correct?

...


BDW WE CAN SENSE (smell, feel, taste) AIR unless you live in a vacuum

, worst argument ever you should've picked a better example.

No need in even addressing the first part of response because the ishh was completely irrelevant and a sorry attempt on your part to trivialize the point.

Now the second part of your response really has me geeked and definitely has my attention...

So let me get this straight... you can SENSE AIR via those "pathways" you posted?

So tell me...what does AIR smell like; and what does it feel like? Better yet, what does it taste like?

Please give me legit answer because I'm dying to know...

Edit

In fact, I extend the question proposed to Anton to all those who said it was a "poor argument".

Please tell me what AIR looks like, taste like, smells like, sounds like, and feels like...please describe this sensory-AIR complex to me?


...

 

[nako xl]

go outside and breathe in through your mouth. you now know what air sounds, smells, feels and tastes like.

if you don't then you're worse off than hellen keller.

as far as what it looks like... you've never seen smog, vapor, etc? that's air.

if you're trying to argue oxygen as in oh-two, that's a different argument, and even then the prior statements apply. sorry.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

The quoted statements above, made by some of my NT brethren, highlight a trend of logic I have come to notice amongst so-called "non-believers".

Essentially, what this logic proposes and champions, is the rational that, "if I can't sense God, then He clearly must not exist". In other words, "if I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, then He is clearly fiction"; after all, the very concept that is "evidence", and the manifestation of said "evidence", derives from our ability--as sentient beings--to "sense" things.

So in connecting the dots, we arrive at a line of thinking that is central to the atheistic argument--and that is, the opinion that "if I can't sense (see, hear, touch, smell, or taste) God directly, then there is no evidence for Him, and if there is no evidence for Him, then He doesn't exist."


***


Now if only y'all could actually see just how faulty and defective that line of thinking is, y'all would realize just how baseless y'all whole argument against the existence of God is.

And to prove my point, I ask y'all this-- "What exactly is AIR"--you know, that thing we "supposedly" breathe in.

We can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; simply stated, we can't sense it directly so why do YOU believe in it (and I KNOW YOU DO). As previously stated, our conception of "evidence" is based off our ability to sense something, and the "lack of evidence" comes about from an inability to sense something. So if we can't sense AIR, then implicitly, there cannot be such a thing as evidence for AIR--and yet, I am quite confident you believe in this thing called AIR correct?

...


BDW WE CAN SENSE (smell, feel, taste) AIR unless you live in a vacuum

, worst argument ever you should've picked a better example.

No need in even addressing the first part of response because the ishh was completely irrelevant and a sorry attempt on your part to trivialize the point.

Now the second part of your response really has me geeked and definitely has my attention...

So let me get this straight... you can SENSE AIR via those "pathways" you posted?

So tell me...what does AIR smell like; and what does it feel like? Better yet, what does it taste like?

Please give me legit answer because I'm dying to know...

Edit

In fact, I extend the question proposed to Anton to all those who said it was a "poor argument".

Please tell me what AIR looks like, taste like, smells like, sounds like, and feels like...please describe this sensory-AIR complex to me?


...

Wait are you kidding, am I missing something?

Sound-Ever heard a breeze, when air moves at a high velocity, it rubs against surfaces and creates a sound. AIR (gas) is matter!!!!
Smell-Depending on the content of the air, it may have a smell......gases such as sulfur, methane (farts)
Feel-Ever felt a gentle breeze of air against your skin? The feeling of cold air vs. warm air

Taste-Certain gases in air have a taste.... can't think of any off the top of my head.

Air=mixture of gases=matter.

 

[edz one]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

The quoted statements above, made by some of my NT brethren, highlight a trend of logic I have come to notice amongst so-called "non-believers".

Essentially, what this logic proposes and champions, is the rational that, "if I can't sense God, then He clearly must not exist". In other words, "if I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, then He is clearly fiction"; after all, the very concept that is "evidence", and the manifestation of said "evidence", derives from our ability--as sentient beings--to "sense" things.

So in connecting the dots, we arrive at a line of thinking that is central to the atheistic argument--and that is, the opinion that "if I can't sense (see, hear, touch, smell, or taste) God directly, then there is no evidence for Him, and if there is no evidence for Him, then He doesn't exist."


***


Now if only y'all could actually see just how faulty and defective that line of thinking is, y'all would realize just how baseless y'all whole argument against the existence of God is.

And to prove my point, I ask y'all this-- "What exactly is AIR"--you know, that thing we "supposedly" breathe in.

We can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; simply stated, we can't sense it directly so why do YOU believe in it (and I KNOW YOU DO). As previously stated, our conception of "evidence" is based off our ability to sense something, and the "lack of evidence" comes about from an inability to sense something. So if we can't sense AIR, then implicitly, there cannot be such a thing as evidence for AIR--and yet, I am quite confident you believe in this thing called AIR correct?

...


BDW WE CAN SENSE (smell, feel, taste) AIR unless you live in a vacuum

, worst argument ever you should've picked a better example.

No need in even addressing the first part of response because the ishh was completely irrelevant and a sorry attempt on your part to trivialize the point.

Now the second part of your response really has me geeked and definitely has my attention...

So let me get this straight... you can SENSE AIR via those "pathways" you posted?

So tell me...what does AIR smell like; and what does it feel like? Better yet, what does it taste like?

Please give me legit answer because I'm dying to know...

Edit

In fact, I extend the question proposed to Anton to all those who said it was a "poor argument".

Please tell me what AIR looks like, taste like, smells like, sounds like, and feels like...please describe this sensory-AIR complex to me?


...

Do you see how faulty your line of argument is? Do you see how baseless your argument is?

There is no other argument more baseless than religion. Not only do you not feel it but you aren't even sure where your religion originated from, who godis, what he looks like, or where he resides and you come in here saying that us having evidence based on our sensual perceptions is baseless?

first of all, your example doesn't make you look too good. You mean we have no concept of oxygen? We don't know what it is? We don't know thatwe're breathing it in? We don't know it's elemental composition or how many molecules it comprises of? We know EVERYTHING about air. We havescientific studies that acknowledge the existence of air. We can be certain that air is 100% real while an invisible entity that lives in the clouds judging uscannot possibly be proven in any shape or form to even exist.

 

[lizett]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

I will be brief...

The quoted statements above, made by some of my NT brethren, highlight a trend of logic I have come to notice amongst so-called "non-believers".

Essentially, what this logic proposes and champions, is the rational that, "if I can't sense God, then He clearly must not exist". In other words, "if I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, then He is clearly fiction"; after all, the very concept that is "evidence", and the manifestation of said "evidence", derives from our ability--as sentient beings--to "sense" things.

So in connecting the dots, we arrive at a line of thinking that is central to the atheistic argument--and that is, the opinion that "if I can't sense (see, hear, touch, smell, or taste) God directly, then there is no evidence for Him, and if there is no evidence for Him, then He doesn't exist."


***


Now if only y'all could actually see just how faulty and defective that line of thinking is, y'all would realize just how baseless y'all whole argument against the existence of God is.

And to prove my point, I ask y'all this-- "What exactly is AIR"--you know, that thing we "supposedly" breathe in.

We can't see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it; simply stated, we can't sense it directly so why do YOU believe in it (and I KNOW YOU DO). As previously stated, our conception of "evidence" is based off our ability to sense something, and the "lack of evidence" comes about from an inability to sense something. So if we can't sense AIR, then implicitly, there cannot be such a thing as evidence for AIR--and yet, I am quite confident you believe in this thing called AIR correct?

...

Well those people don't speak for all Atheists me I don't care if there is a God or not. I'm gonna live my life to the fullestregardless. Also I've seen your(not necessarily "yours") argument time and time again, I don't "believe" in air, but I do believein Oxygen and I'm sure we can touch and taste that.

 

[mike diamond]

I hate that most organized religions feel it is their duty to "save" you. I don't want to pay x amount of dollars to your child raping church nordo I want to make a pilgramage to some garbage city. You can do what ever the hell you want.

1. I believe in a universal cloth we are all cut from.

2. If God is real, he would be cool, drink beer and ask us to just have a good time here on earth.

3. A high percentage, if not all of you "religious" people, believe what you do cause someone told you to feel that way.

 

[lizett]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Edit

In fact, I extend the question proposed to Anton to all those who said it was a "poor argument".

Please tell me what AIR looks like, taste like, smells like, sounds like, and feels like...please describe this sensory-AIR complex to me?


...

This is what air looks like this in liquid form

. Ahuman nose is not sensitive enough to comprehend what air "smells". Drink a glass of water if you want to know what it tastes like. I doubt air makesa noise then it's in a dormant state. You can figure the feel like part for yourself just wave your hands in the air.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Like you just don't care.

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

go outside and breathe in through your mouth. you now know what air sounds, smells, feels and tastes like.

if you don't then you're worse off than hellen keller.

as far as what it looks like... you've never seen smog, vapor, etc? that's air.

if you're trying to argue oxygen as in oh-two, that's a different argument, and even then the prior statements apply. sorry.

...

@ this

So in other words, you have no concrete answers for me right...?

I asked in all honesty, for YOU to tell me what AIR looks like, sounds like, tastes like, smells like, and feels like (via sense of touch), and all you couldcome up with was "go outside and breathe in through your mouth"...

Hell just to humor myself, I actually breathed in through my mouth...and I certainly didn't taste AIR, smell AIR, or hear AIR. My did, however, experiencea slight case of dryness during the breathing process but now, is that really evidence of air, or merely proof that my room is cold (which it is because mythermostat is at 66).

Now "as far as what it looks like...you've never seen smog, vapor, etc? that's air"...Oh' really...

So you mean to tell me that this thing we call AIR comes in two other "forms", and each of these forms goes by a different name. So in other words,you're saying that there are "different types of AIR", which we refer to as "VAPOR" and "SMOG"?...

Listen here, a "vapor is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than it's critical pressure. This means that the vapor can be condensedto a liquid or to a solid by increasing its pressure, without reducing the temperature." Now ask yourself this-- when does AIR ever become liquid or asolid? Ask yourself this as well--is it even possible for AIR to become a liquid or a solid, which is a characteristic of all vapors....

.

Understand that, whatever "vapor" you're describing IS NOT AIR, but merely the diffused gaseous state of some liquid or solid with the substancewe refer to as AIR.

vapor |ˈv

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Lizett

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Edit

In fact, I extend the question proposed to Anton to all those who said it was a "poor argument".

Please tell me what AIR looks like, taste like, smells like, sounds like, and feels like...please describe this sensory-AIR complex to me?


...

This is what air looks like this in liquid form

. A human nose is not sensitive enough to comprehend what air "smells". Drink a glass of water if you want to know what it tastes like. I doubt air makes a noise then it's in a dormant state. You can figure the feel like part for yourself just wave your hands in the air.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Like you just don't care.

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE STOPPPPP because all you're doing is actually making it worse "for your side" with what you just posted...

...

 

[dabuddhawitjays]

Anyone mention Plato's books?

I'll do skim through this thread later.

 

[physicx]

im confused

i come back in here and dudes is talking about air

 

[superantigen]

Originally Posted by Physicx

im confused

i come back in here and dudes is talking about air

Don't be, I brought AIR into the discussion merely to show just how flawed the Atheist logic is. The very same logic they resort to in order to dispelnotions of God/ a Supreme being/ a higher power.

Thus far, no one has proved my logic to wrong so i'll keep waiting...

...that is, until I fall asleep though...

Watch someone come post a whole Wikepedia page in an attempt to get at me...

...

 

[hazeleyed honey]

Here I go just rambling. Sorry if this is incoherent. Heres comes wall of text...

When I did have a religious belief system, I would also think of situations in reference to people saying that God was watching and saved lives. But then, as Ibecome more agnostic I would think of all these kinds of circumstances and to me it was just so illogical why a Supreme Being would watch and save others andin other situations he would not. Why can't it be done in all situations and only in certain situations?To me it just does not make sense in how in someinstances like this, God will save a human being from death and other instances not. I just think of this world and it makes me sick to see the most corruptand biggest violators are able to be ruling the world, while billions are drenched in poverty and live lives in misery and pain. So if this man was saved fromdeath, why not save a child dying from an illness (when the child dies at such a young age)? What makes God in some logics to save some people in somesituations and not in others situations? When is death based just on fate,or if there is a God who controls interactions on earth, when is death based on hiswill and control and not fate?

I realized that organized religion was made by humans. I studied their origins and how they came to be. So, why the heck am I going to believe in something ofa religion trying to dictate and tell me what the heck I should believe and what I would do and what is right or wrong, when to me it is all made up bymankind? Spirituality is my business and sacred to me and it is no one's business to interfere in it. I do not find any absolute truth in organizedreligion, and would not want to live in fear because of a religion telling me if I do not pray a certain way, or fast a certain way, or believe in that God asthe savior, I am doomed to hell. I will seek the truth and wisdom through what I feel and what I come to terms to. I may never get the answers to life and whatour purspose is here on earth, but that is the beauty of it. To live life on your on terms, and not follow a religion that has brainwashed me into what tobelieve. You know, I still do not know what I believe. I think of myself in terms of being Agnostic. I believe in something, or a force that created thisworld, but I do not know what the heck it is or how it works.

 

[agentarenas]

^ Sorta relevant to what this post alluded to (keep in mind Im not trying to spark some huge argument or start a fire, this is something I genuinely havethought of and I'd like an opinion on), I think by definition one can say God is divine, which is what separates God from humans. Following this logic, howcould one expect to try and explain how God works through human knowledge and understanding? Meaning how can one criticize God for "saving" oneperson and "letting" another die, when we cant even comprehend the way in which God works, since that is what makes God, God, and humans, humans?

Obviously one has to believe in God for that to even be plausible, but it always bugs me when a religious person will comment on someone's death and saysomething like "How could God do/allow such a thing?"

 

[rko2004]

I think a lot of you in here are more so in a state of question. Honestly us "believers" can't answer every question. Some yeah but not all. Ialso think due to things and situations being mislabeled, that has also led to a lot of confusion or questions. Its like math. It has different levels ofunderstanding, but you can't understand those without understanding the basics of it. IMO from reading just about every response, it seems like that'swhere some of you are coming from.

I also seen some if not all of you call religion a tool to put fear in us. I mean yeah it can be looked at that in some ways but aren't all ruleseverywhere meant for that very reason? To teach you what to do and what not to do? If not for rules we'd be lost right? I'm not sure of the rules youall are talking about, but lets use the 10 commandments for example. Please point me to one that is bad and causes harm?

To me it seems like people are just trying to say "Look, I don't need God to tell me how to live my life". That's weird to me because youfollow MANS laws anyway in everyday life. You don't steal, kill, speed or cheat on your taxes. If you look at rules as control then you and I, we are allbeing controlled.

Another thing I've noticed is that when NT talks about "Religion" being bad. Its usually Christianity as if that's the only religion. Itslike a personal vendetta against Jesus

. Funny because that's actual in the bible "spoken" by him. But I mean its like your arguments areanger filled. Like in a way you were wronged or something.

I think a lot of your questions would be answered if asked instead of demanded in a "tell me this hogwash you fool" type of way.

If anyone wants to be mature, I'll peacefully try to answer your questions the best I can or maybe someone else can. Lets try to not bash each other.

but it always bugs me when a religious person will comment on someone's death and say something like "How could God do/allow such a thing?"
Agreed. So much blame is placed especially when its our fault. A lot of misplaced blame.

And to touch on what you said prior, it is funny that people try to pick Gods' brain. Like yeah we have questions and we question each other, but we'reall humans. How do we even begin to call out and interrogate a being in which operates outside our realm of thinking. I'm not talking about blind faith,but more so along the lines of maybe we aren't meant to know everything from jump. That's why we are given tools and brains to discover or sometimesthe answer is given and we don't accept it.



Oh yeah, another thing that kinda makes me chuckle is when people say "There is no God. That is fact.". How is it fact exactly? Who or what proved itto be fact? And when was it proven to be fact that God doesn't exist? It seems pretty stupid to just flat out stamp something as false when you haveabsolutely NO PROOF that it is false. So how can it be fact when it has yet to be proven again? And correction, you "BELIEVE" God doesn't exist. You don't "KNOW".

For example, we "KNOW" the Bengals are 7-3. How? Because there was a game played and we have proof it wasplayed. I "BELIEVE"/"HAVE FAITH" that the Bengals will win Sunday against the Browns. I don't"KNOW" that they will though.

 

[bangtcg]

antigen, air isn't really a thing dude--instead it is a combination of things (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc..). The air on earth is not made up of thesame substances as air on mars.

I think a better question is, "what is oxygen and how can we prove it?" Apparently you want proof through the five senses? Well, oxygen is acolorless, odorless and tasteless. It makes no noise and you can't feel anything with the human touch because its a gas (I hope I don't have toestablish what a gas is for you).

Obviously, several of the people in this thread are wrong to use the five senses as a standard to believe in things. So everybody should just trash that.

But anyways, antigen, we believe in "air" and have proof of it because humans have studied and recorded oxygen. It can be proven to exists over andover and over again like the sun rising in the morning. We can contain it and give it to NFL players when they need extra oxygen in their muscles.

Some people want that same standard when it comes believing a higher power.

 

[ace bomber]

Good post RKO... Just a quick question about your thoughts on the bible. As there was a little disagreement of sorts earlier between two"believers." Do you believe that the bible should be taken literally? Or is it open to some interpretation? I personally feel like the bible hasgreat lessons that can be learned from it as well as it instills some morals in people (I actually have Proverbs 23:25 tattooed on my arm) BUT I do not believethat there is a GOD and I'm really not looking for anybody to try to convince me of that. To me it seems that one of religions MAIN goals is/was to givepeople some guidelines to live life as a decent human being rather than a savage. So, in that aspect I can see why religion is a good thing and can helppeople, but I just really don't see the need for the whole GOD/eternal life aspect of it... Sorry, I got off on a bit of a tangent

but if you couldgive me your opinion on the bible it would be much appreciated. Also feel free to agree/disagree with anything else I stated. I won't throw a fit and starttrying to belittle

I'm glad that there is actually somebody that seems to be level headed enough for me to ask, cause most of my christian friends arenot and just get frustrated and angry

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by ACE BOMBER

Good post RKO... Just a quick question about your thoughts on the bible. As there was a little disagreement of sorts earlier between two "believers." Do you believe that the bible should be taken literally? Or is it open to some interpretation? I personally feel like the bible has great lessons that can be learned from it as well as it instills some morals in people (I actually have Proverbs 23:25 tattooed on my arm) BUT I do not believe that there is a GOD and I'm really not looking for anybody to try to convince me of that. To me it seems that one of religions MAIN goals is/was to give people some guidelines to live life as a decent human being rather than a savage. So, in that aspect I can see why religion is a good thing and can help people, but I just really don't see the need for the whole GOD/eternal life aspect of it... Sorry, I got off on a bit of a tangent

but if you could give me your opinion on the bible it would be much appreciated. Also feel free to agree/disagree with anything else I stated. I won't throw a fit and start trying to belittle

I'm glad that there is actually somebody that seems to be level headed enough for me to ask, cause most of my christian friends are not and just get frustrated and angry

Well I take it pretty as is. I try to at least. I will admit there are things I don't abide by in daily life which I need to work on. But overall I take itas is. Interpretation is dangerous. That's how people manipulate others into their own purpose. Honestly dude its kinda weird you don't believe in Godbut you got a scripture tatted on you

. Kinda like if I got a atheistquote on me. But yeah overall I really do look at the bible and try to take it as literal as possible. I will admit somethings are a bit harder to abide by butI do believe in the word. Hope I help without going in circles

.

 

[ace bomber]

Well as terrible as it sounds... I actually enjoy a decent amount of the bible, but pretty much just the parts that are relevant to an everyday life.There's just a lot of stuff in it that will never sit right with me. Nonetheless as I said before, I feel that there are countless lesson to be learned. Iknow that makes it sound like I am kinda half christian half not. Call it what you may, I just really can't buy into the whole thing. Parts of it work forme, parts of it don't. Now you wanna talk about going in circles?

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by ACE BOMBER

Well as terrible as it sounds... I actually enjoy a decent amount of the bible, but pretty much just the parts that are relevant to an everyday life. There's just a lot of stuff in it that will never sit right with me. Nonetheless as I said before, I feel that there are countless lesson to be learned. I know that makes it sound like I am kinda half christian half not. Call it what you may, I just really can't buy into the whole thing. Parts of it work for me, parts of it don't. Now you wanna talk about going in circles?

You do sound like a border line believer though. This ishonestly a first. I haven't seen this before.

 

[ace bomber]

Well,what can I say... I guess I'm different

But back to my original question... There are certain things in the bible that I feel are written in aliteral sense. Take for example my tattoo. Proverbs 23:25 So bring your parents joy, may she who gave you birth behappy. Now I don't believe that there is any confusing what the message is there. Meanwhile you have the stories that you find in the Old Testament(to be honest I can't really recite any of them word for word, and out of fear of "butchering" them I will just say "you know the onesI'm talking about"

) Do you see them as just stories? Or are you supposed to search for the reason for why the story is relevant and put it intoapplication of your everyday life? I ask because they seem "far-fetched" to me, which would somewhat make sense if you were to interpret it yourselfand find the meaning/reasoning behind it. But to believe it as just a recollection of what actually happened, that Ican't quite make sense of. Some borderline Dungeons and Dragons tales in there

No offense meant by it, just kinda how it looks through my eyes.

 

[knightngale]

RKO2004 wrote:

To me it seems like people are just trying to say "Look, I don't need God to tell me how to live my life". That's weird to me because you follow MANS laws anyway in everyday life. You don't steal, kill, speed or cheat on your taxes. If you look at rules as control then you and I, we are all being controlled.

-




men can enforce laws through coercion, god can't
unless you really believe there is a heaven and hell

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by SuperAntigen

Originally Posted by Nako XL

go outside and breathe in through your mouth. you now know what air sounds, smells, feels and tastes like.

if you don't then you're worse off than hellen keller.

as far as what it looks like... you've never seen smog, vapor, etc? that's air.

if you're trying to argue oxygen as in oh-two, that's a different argument, and even then the prior statements apply. sorry.

...

@ this

So in other words, you have no concrete answers for me right...?

I asked in all honesty, for YOU to tell me what AIR looks like, sounds like, tastes like, smells like, and feels like (via sense of touch), and all you could come up with was "go outside and breathe in through your mouth"...

Hell just to humor myself, I actually breathed in through my mouth...and I certainly didn't taste AIR, smell AIR, or hear AIR. My did, however, experience a slight case of dryness during the breathing process but now, is that really evidence of air, or merely proof that my room is cold (which it is because my thermostat is at 66).

Now "as far as what it looks like...you've never seen smog, vapor, etc? that's air"...Oh' really...

So you mean to tell me that this thing we call AIR comes in two other "forms", and each of these forms goes by a different name. So in other words, you're saying that there are "different types of AIR", which we refer to as "VAPOR" and "SMOG"?...

Listen here, a "vapor is a substance in the gas phase at a temperature lower than it's critical pressure. This means that the vapor can be condensed to a liquid or to a solid by increasing its pressure, without reducing the temperature." Now ask yourself this-- when does AIR ever become liquid or a solid? Ask yourself this as well--is it even possible for AIR to become a liquid or a solid, which is a characteristic of all vapors....

.

Understand that, whatever "vapor" you're describing IS NOT AIR, but merely the diffused gaseous state of some liquid or solid with the substance we refer to as AIR.

vapor |ˈv