THE SEAS ARE ANGRY THIS DAY MY FRIEND_Castanza
Acquiunk wrote:Soul-doctor, you have made my point better than I or anyone else on this thread, congratulations.
I think you deserve the accolades on that, bud.
NNY wrote:Soul Quack,
Condemning the faith is not necessary, Faith is a blind leap, choose to take it or not, don't choose for others.
Im my mind, God isn't real, which makes him all the more necessary.
Is it? Are you married NNY? Involved with some woman or man? Does not 'faith' come into the question of your relationship? If you have no 'faith' that your mate will be 'faithful', or in otherwords, monogamous, then you have no 'trust'. And I trust you have 'faith' in such things as 'trust' and 'honesty', because you most certainly cannot 'prove' them.
I do believe such sentiments are the result of 'faith' and not 'proof', and thus Love is 'blind' like the 'faith' in your mind.
I was being sarcastic about the Grand Canyon comment. The Creationists have been quite effective at making themselves the laughting stocks they so clearly deserveto be and all by their little ole selves.
I didn't say anything about that you fool. I said faith was for one to set up for himself, not to force or disprove in others, like the other, more pompass doctors believe.
Soul Quack, you rarely make sense, many times you seem to be really confident for knowing so little, and I would like to thank you for portraying the evil philosoher stereotype.
Remember, What Would George Clooney Do?
Huh? What's "pompass" -- is that an overbearing compass? Or a donkey who is really elegant?
It humors me how you kiddies gather around to talk big, like playground bullies. Pimping your egos like cool clothes and slick hair. But as bullies are often wont to do, m.i.a. when it comes to putting up or shutting up.
They shut up to your face, but they put up bold behind your back. That's cool though. Makes for interesting listening.
Faith
I just want to make one observation. I think that the type of "faith" needed to think your wife is not cheating on you is slightly different from the type needed to believe in God. If you have faith that your spouse is monogamous with you, you are choosing to believe WITH the evidence. The evidence will usually point towards a faithful spouse. For example, your spouse has been coming home from work on time everyday, he/she always leaves you a number where he/she will be, never has lipstick or inexplicable hair on his/her clothing, engages in regular sex with you, has no history of unfaithfulness, and seems to harbor no guilty emotions or actions. This is all evidence that he/she is not cheating. So we choose to have Faith that they are Faithful.
Religion on the otherhand is faith AGAINST the evidence. Astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, ecology, and physics all point towards a world without devine intervention such as God's creation. But some people still choose to believe in this devine intervention. To me, this is equivelant to someones husband coming home 3 hours late from work with lipstick on his face, and you STILL have faith he is not cheating.
You may not necessarily be wrong, but your beliefs are suspect.
Greg
Good post, skeptic.
Putting one's faith in any other person is commendable but ultimately dangerous -- unless one realizes and accepts the culpability of the human spirit. We are all wired differently although some of the differences may not be immediately detectable. Get thrown into the same household and become co-dependent, and those differences become sometimes alarmingly apparant. It is the well-adjusted, basically happy individual who can cope with that, including an infidelity.
soul_doctor73 wrote:It humors me how you kiddies gather around to talk big, like playground bullies. Pimping your egos like cool clothes and slick hair. But as bullies are often wont to do, m.i.a. when it comes to putting up or shutting up.
They shut up to your face, but they put up bold behind your back. That's cool though. Makes for interesting listening.
And you have the nerve to give lectures about following guidelines -- and sticking to the topic?
Jeez!
I think it was a pun, but then again it could just be terrible spelling on my part.
Hello skeptic, Welcome to the forum thingy.
good point thingy
Wasn't this my point to you:
It humors me how you kiddies gather around to talk big, like playground bullies. Pimping your egos like cool clothes and slick hair.
Your just being "pompassly" pompous and yelling at people by saying unto them what you are.
Your doing it again, you don't pay attention very well, smiley face but I'm on quick reply and don't know all of the faces by heart.
:0
) :' :{}?
I like "pompass" better than "pompous" -- if it was a typo, it was still a brilliant pun.
Frank Apisa wrote:soul_doctor73 wrote:It humors me how you kiddies gather around to talk big, like playground bullies. Pimping your egos like cool clothes and slick hair. But as bullies are often wont to do, m.i.a. when it comes to putting up or shutting up.
They shut up to your face, but they put up bold behind your back. That's cool though. Makes for interesting listening.
And you have the nerve to give lectures about following guidelines -- and sticking to the topic?
Jeez!
Maybe you point here is too sutle. Mind amping it up a bit?
God, "Boy am I happy that the Grand Canyon was just finished before it was discovered."
soul_doctor73 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:soul_doctor73 wrote:It humors me how you kiddies gather around to talk big, like playground bullies. Pimping your egos like cool clothes and slick hair. But as bullies are often wont to do, m.i.a. when it comes to putting up or shutting up.
They shut up to your face, but they put up bold behind your back. That's cool though. Makes for interesting listening.
And you have the nerve to give lectures about following guidelines -- and sticking to the topic?
Jeez!
Maybe you point here is too sutle. Mind amping it up a bit?
Even if you had spelled subtle correctly, you would be all wet here, Gato.
Besides, you are about as subtle as a toothache.
Nice try, though. I imagine somebody might have fallen for that drivel. Someone with your intelligence, for instance.
"Gato" - a Fruedian slip?
Of course Frank. My mistake. I should have known your sharp eyes wouldn't miss an opportunity to hype your self image. What with the inference to your intelligence and all.
Am I having an abuzz flashback?
