Only on Disqus. Sock on sock love is quite popular.
This probably will not go anywhere, but do you think their experiences are not genuine because they have it with Allah and you have it with God? They do not think they are looking with human eyes when they have their experience, any more than you think you are looking with human eyes when you have yours. They are extremely similar experiences.
It is intellectual dishonesty to claim something written by someone who barely theist and was known to be such at the time and probably would not even maintain the social pretense today is a proof of a intimate, involved God.
Yes ma?am ;)
As I said in the News Channel, so I guess the dude will bake cakes for liars, thieves, adulterers, etcetera but not for gays. Seems sensible and honourable to me. (sarc)
There is proof, endless proof. But for me to put it out on a chat like this would be foolish. If your mind is already made up, there is nothing I can say, no matter how blatantly obvious it is, that will convince you otherwise. So, the only conclusion to come to is this: you've already proven (in your own mind) that God doesn't or cant exist. So now, how about trying to prove (to yourself) that God does exist. Take 1 year and go on an honest pursuit of Truth. Sincerely pray and continually ask for revelation. Tell "God" that you really want to know if He's real, AND MEAN IT. If you have sincerely done it (prayed, gone to church, read the Bible, etc...)for 1 year and are still convinced, then I would say you have earned the right to proclaim there is no God.
I gave you several actual peer-reviewed papers and asked you to refute them.
I am reading a book now by a financial guy. Ric Edelman, the Truth About Your Future. Actuarial charts are going to have to reflect that in not too distant future we will be routinely living to 110 and 120. Insurance companies are a little worried. Especially on the annuity side. How?s that for hanging around too long?
fine, Vik Ingn!
He wasn't dumb about god. He was wise enough to see science could observe and predict without needing to invoke an invisible all powerful entity that apparently, cannot be observed or measured and is not necessary for the science to work.
Sometimes you have to go back to the orginal statement
You mean cultists approve of their type of child abuse and have reached that wrong conclusion based on the dangerous mind pollution of religion
Not name-calling. Simply stating I know the law and there is no need to bring it up.
brought back memories of high school days
'You have no clue what I did for you, it was Huuuuge!'
Poor dear, still got that transference monkey on your back I see.
oh so you just made stuff up
While I'm down to just one tat, I'm a guy who has said no, on numerous occasions.
If it is a fact then it is provable, if you can't prove it then it is not a fact. I would ask to prove it again but below I show how you are wrong.
I have two hounds. I tend to keep them away from other dogs in general. In my area people tend to use dogs to display 'street credibility' rather than as loving family pets... so many of them are poorly trained and aggressive.
Lol. Im sorry you?re an unemployed troll and you live with your parents. Your father either pistol whipped you one too many times during your childhood or not enough to motivate you to become more than a pathetic internet troll. This is typical with your Trump supporter demographic, hence the reasoning you hillbillies were holding up signs begging for Trump to place jobs at your feet at various rallies around the country. Let?s be realistic, who would hire a low intellect voter like you in the first place, all you trumptards look heavily medicated and always have that dumbfounded look on your face. ;)
No child is being killed. words have meanings and definitions.
Fair enough. It is a gamble.
looks like its done?
In the ground. Same place you're going.
Let us approach the question from a function or purpose viewpoint. 1 If the purpose is to teach biology, then the biology teacher should not venture into polemic or any other discussion of subjects not related such as religion.
Yes and honestly time they cannot get back
They don't really "PRACTICE" it now, do they? Come on. Get real.
You're purposefully ignoring the other parts I already provided.
The Big Bang is the beginning of expansion of the universe and not the beginning of the universe. Energy and matter were already there. Otherwise what was there to expand?