What's new
By:

Mark Cuban's afraid of the witchhunt. he might think he is next target of the witchunt

I have a question for stoked.

Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I even have a picture of what the monster looks like:

196261.jpg


Do you believe that it exists?
 
One Brow said:
So, do you believe Allah is real or do you believe god is fake?
Click to expand...

I believe the are the same God. Just different interpretations of Him.

Edit: Also love that since it all boils down to belief for me when it comes to religion that some people cannot handle that. They have to resort to sarcasm, mocking and other failing tactics. Classy.
 
Stoked said:
Edit: Also love that since it all boils down to belief for me when it comes to religion that some people cannot handle that. They have to resort to sarcasm, mocking and other failing tactics. Classy.
Click to expand...

We're mocking a notion that you can decide the lack of belief is an impossible state, based on no good reason at all. The hubris of your suggestion is staggering, and the mockery deserved.
 
One Brow said:
We're mocking a notion that you can decide the lack of belief is an impossible state, based on no good reason at all. The hubris of your suggestion is staggering, and the mockery deserved.
Click to expand...

According to you.

Keep in mind this is a specific case about the existence of God not the over all notion that a lack of belief is possible on some random topic. To me it boils down to faith. In my opinion, you believe a higher power (God in this example) exists, you believe it does not or you do not know and believe that it is possible. That is how I see it.

It is no less viable then your assertion that there is no belief here. Your intention of mockery fails as my view in the matter does not require your acceptance or even respect. The difference here is that I can respect your opinion even while I disagree. The fact that you cannot return the favor and mock it at all speaks of your own intolerance.
 
Stoked said:
According to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, according to me, living in my mind, as opposed to you, a person with no access to my thoughts. While fully acknowledging that people often misunderstand themselves, and I could be misunderstanding myself, telling me that my conscious understanding is wrong about my conscious understanding is the height of arrogance.

Stoked said:
In my opinion, you believe a higher power (God in this example) exists, you believe it does not or you do not know and believe that it is possible. That is how I see it.
Click to expand...

I believe it is possible there is some sort of Goddish existence, but see no evidence for this and no reason to accept it. Therefore, I know there is no God in the same way I know there are no unicorns: provisionally, based on the absence of evidence.

Stoked said:
The difference here is that I can respect your opinion even while I disagree.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall you have not exhibited all that much respect when I talked about how you, as a human, process things unconsciously in light of your being human; demanding respect while you talk about how I process things consciously seems an ill-suited companion position.
 
One Brow said:
Yes, according to me, living in my mind, as opposed to you, a person with no access to my thoughts. While fully acknowledging that people often misunderstand themselves, and I could be misunderstanding myself, telling me that my conscious understanding is wrong about my conscious understanding is the height of arrogance.



I believe it is possible there is some sort of Goddish existence, but see no evidence for this and no reason to accept it. Therefore, I know there is no God in the same way I know there are no unicorns: provisionally, based on the absence of evidence.



I seem to recall you have not exhibited all that much respect when I talked about how you, as a human, process things unconsciously in light of your being human; demanding respect while you talk about how I process things consciously seems an ill-suited companion position.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean when I call you out when you get snippy, smug and dismissive of others? I try my best to treat you as you treat others. Not perfect but I feel I do a decent job.

You got dimissive and introduced a mocking tone here and in other places. But yes we are all human and err. Apology accepted.
 
VINYLONE said:
Hmmmm. So let's say two men or women who have met in college and are gay virgins decided to have sex. This act of [sodomy], you consider no better than being drunk, being adulterous or the equivalent of flashing someone?
[/i]
Click to expand...

I made a list of behaviors people have disagreed with.
Disagreeing with behavior is different than disagreeing with looks (color of skin) as was the original bad comparison.
 
VINYLONE said:
The fact of the matter is that gay "marriage" does not affect you personally in any way.
Click to expand...

9/11 didn't effect me personally but I'm still against Muslims flying planes into buildings.

Now before you get all obtuse and think I'm making a direct comparison I will state the point straight out.

You can legitimately be against actions because of the way they effect other individuals, communities, and society overall when they will never effect you personally.
 
PearlWatson said:
You can legitimately be against actions because of the way they effect other individuals, communities, and society overall when they will never effect you personally.
Click to expand...

terrorists hijacking planes has zero chance of affecting you personally? Lol. Obtuse, narrow-minded, and dim-witted all in one.
 
PearlWatson said:
9/11 didn't effect me personally but I'm still against Muslims flying planes into buildings.

Now before you get all obtuse and think I'm making a direct comparison I will state the point straight out.

You can legitimately be against actions because of the way they effect other individuals, communities, and society overall when they will never effect you personally.
Click to expand...

omg thats perfectly said.

because i think it effects communities and society negativly(again think, got no prove just a theory)
 
PearlWatson said:
You can legitimately be against actions because of the way they effect other individuals, communities, and society overall when they will never effect you personally.
Click to expand...

So, you can name people who are not in a gay marriage, and who are affected by gay marriage in some way?
 
One Brow said:
So, you can name people who are not fat, and who are affected by fat people in some way?
Click to expand...


the whole ****ing society is affected by those morbidly obese people(at least healthcare wise), they make healthcare expensive.

sometimes things indivudials or groups of people do affects everybody in some way.
 
dalamon said:
you're avoiding the question, which is cute. I'm sure my inquiries elucidated how leaky, and preposterous your position is on this issue. Which I'll gladly take.

It's a beautiful question, really. Answer yes, and you're advocating Eugenics. Answer no, and all the sudden your argument for homosexual union falls apart. If the government has "no business in things" like you say, then it should in no way prohibit homosexuals from marrying.


Your perspective is convoluted, poorly thought out, and contradictory. Good day.
Click to expand...

If by "beautiful question" you mean libtarded question.

You have zero understanding of Darwin inspired eugenics. It was about preventing the "wrong" people from contributing to the gene pool. Infertile couples are the LAST people Darwinists would be concerned about.

Either your liberal infested Canukian education system is crap or you have the comprehension skills of your ape-like ancestor. Probably both.
 
DutchJazzer said:
the whole ****ing society is affected by those morbidly obese people(at least healthcare wise), they make healthcare expensive.

sometimes things indivudials or groups of people do affects everybody in some way.
Click to expand...

Actually as I pointed out with smokers fat people, due to their propensity for dieing early, are actually less costly for the government and the healthcare system. It is the health nuts that live to age 90 breaking hips and managing Alzheimers that are so damn expensive.
 
PearlWatson said:
If by "beautiful question" you mean libtarded question.

You have zero understanding of Darwin inspired eugenics. It was about preventing the "wrong" people from contributing to the gene pool. Infertile couples are the LAST people Darwinists would be concerned about.

Either your liberal infested Canukian education system is crap or you have the comprehension skills of your ape-like ancestor. Probably both.
Click to expand...




btw in nature some species of animals prefer to mate with partners with disabilities.

because of their disabiltie meaning they are better survivors
 
heyhey said:
Actually as I pointed out with smokers fat people, due to their propensity for dieing early, are actually less costly for the government and the healthcare system. It is the health nuts that live to age 90 breaking hips and managing Alzheimers that are so damn expensive.
Click to expand...
actually their was like a dutch research. that pointed out smokers and fatties are the biggest drain on healthcare.
so now if you wanna stop smoking or start losing weight, it is covered by health insurrance.
coaching coach, dieting coach. all other kinda things that help you stop smoking(nicotine patches etc) are now covered by HI.

meanwhile, they removed stuff like birth control and std test(unless you have like symptoms) from things that are covered.


but on the other hand we dont really have lots of the
fat-11.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top