snood wrote:Quote:There are no "miracles",
You gonna back that up with some scientific proof?
The proofs available through science abound, increasing logarithmically both in depth and precision and in number, while no proof of any "miracle" ever having occurred is known to exist.
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder - only. Most are illusions of sight and/or brain.
timberlandko wrote:.....no proof of any "miracle" ever having occurred is known to exist.
It's always pretty funny when this is asserted, with great gravity.
What natural proof would you expect of the supernatural?
Do you try to see sounds? Or smell colors?
Do you listen to photographs?
Yeah, no kidding there's no natural proof of the supernatural. You catch on quick.
No doubt though, it impresses some folks when you intone it somberly, kinda like God speaking to Charlton Heston in "10 Commandments" . Give it that good resonating quality and folks will be suitably impressed.
...and short of that, he's impressed enough with himself to make up for it.
I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the quality of religionist argument evidenced in the related discussions here - while it is possible to argue the religionist proposition forcefully, convincingly, and in intellectually sound, academically valid manner, none here have effected such. Whether or not there be any validity to any religionist proposition, the more visible proponents of Christianity and of Islam, in particular, as represented on these boards, present and defend their propositions and supporting arguments in pathetic, ludicrous, circular manner, in the end doing their propositions grave disservice.
neologist wrote:When you die:
"In that day his thoughts do perish." (Psalms 146:4)
So, when you're dead, you're dead.
Dear Neologist.. All the time, I couldn't understand what you mean with this sentence. Do you mean that we will be nothing after death ? No hell, No paradise ? or.. ?
Lash wrote:No. I'm using your post to talk to other people.
Hey, that's a cool trick - that way, you can rip me all you want, but you never have to be accountable for it, or responsible. Kinda childish and chicken, but smart...
timberlandko wrote:I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the quality of religionist argument evidenced in the related discussions here - while it is possible to argue the religionist proposition forcefully, convincingly, and in intellectually sound, academically valid manner, none here have effected such. Whether or not there be any validity to any religionist proposition, the more visible proponents of Christianity and of Islam, in particular, as represented on these boards, present and defend their propositions and supporting arguments in pathetic, ludicrous, circular manner, in the end doing their propositions grave disservice.
It has more to do with faith that proof. Only those who actually possess it can experience and know it. It would be akin to you proving that you had a particular thought at a particular time. Can't be done.
Good example, Intrepid.
Experience may often be 'unprovable' scientifically.
Fact is, most of history cannot be 'scientifically' proven.
Why? First of all , it's not repeatable.
Also those who observed it recorded nothing.
Can you prove what your ancestors 30 generations ago did for a living? What were there names? etc
You can only know for certain that they survived to childbearing age and had at least one offspring........other than that you can 'prove' nothing scientifically.
Does that mean they did nothing except survive to childbearing age and produce one offspring?
Hardly.
Besides 'scientific' proof , there are other types of proof such as historical/ legal proof, including the testimony of eyewitnesses, etc.
And many facts of history may be 'unproven' to us, but the events took place nevertheless.
But hyper-naturalists sometimes like to pretend that the ONLY type of proof that exists is 'scientific'.
At least they hope you believe that it's so.
Intrepid wrote:timberlandko wrote:I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the quality of religionist argument evidenced in the related discussions here - while it is possible to argue the religionist proposition forcefully, convincingly, and in intellectually sound, academically valid manner, none here have effected such. Whether or not there be any validity to any religionist proposition, the more visible proponents of Christianity and of Islam, in particular, as represented on these boards, present and defend their propositions and supporting arguments in pathetic, ludicrous, circular manner, in the end doing their propositions grave disservice.
It has more to do with faith that proof. Only those who actually possess it can experience and know it. It would be akin to you proving that you had a particular thought at a particular time. Can't be done.
I think its sort of like timberland trying to understand humility....
Apparently, snood, your failure, whether through inability or refusal, to substantively address and objectively engage my position is among the things for which you have cause to be very humble.
Only in your bloated head could my lack of response to the finer print of your self centered babble constitute a reason to be humble.
But like I said, you couldn't possibly understand the meaning of the word anyway.
A life has "technically" ended when everyone says you're dead but you.
snood, I really appreciate and enjoy your wonderfully effective efforts in the interest of making my point for me.
timberlandko wrote:snood, I really appreciate and enjoy your wonderfully effective efforts in the interest of making my point for me.
How pleasant for you. You certainly make mine for me.
Irrelevant religious wrangling does get tedious, doesn't it, Swimpy?
Belly-button gazing, egotistical blather certainly does.....
Lather was thirty years old today,
They took away all of his toys.
His mother sent newspaper clippings to him,
About his old friends who'd stopped being boys.
There was Harwitz E. Green, just turned thirty-three,
His leather chair waits at the bank.
And Seargent Dow Jones, twenty-seven years old,
Commanding his very own tank.
But Lather still finds it a nice thing to do,
To lie about nude in the sand,
Drawing pictures of mountains that look like bumps,
And thrashing the air with his hands.
But wait, oh Lather's productive you know,
He produces the finest of sound,
Putting drumsticks on either side of his nose,
Snorting the best licks in town,
But that's all over...
Lather was thirty years old today,
And Lather came foam from his tongue.
He looked at me eyes wide and plainly said,
Is it true that I'm no longer young?
And the children call him famous,
And the old men call him insane,
And sometimes he's so nameless,
That he hardly knows which game to play...
Which words to say...
And I should have told him, "No, you're not old."
And I should have let him go on...smiling...babywide.
snood wrote:Belly-button gazing, egotistical blather.....
Evidently, that genre comprises by your reckoning all not congruent with and/or not endorsive of your particular belief sets, theologic and ideologic.
Oh, and Dys - well done, that
