Fat hurts wrote:
Hmmmmmm wrote:
Why is the Jesus of the Old Testament so mean?
He's not. But I think we've already covered that.
Have you read the Old Testament. Lots of smiting, the thing with Job, Moses, slavery, flooding the world, all that stuff. Jesus seemed angry.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
A theologian would say that you just went a long way toward proving God's existence. God is the infinitely supreme being. Surely, you wouldn't argue that infinity doesn't exist? If there is no infinity then modern mathematics collapses.
Unless you can define what an infinitely supreme being is/does instead of relying on “I just feel/believe” then all I can assume is you have no idea what you are talking about. No offense meant at all - but for this topic to have any real meat to discuss there has to be a starting point, a tangible subject... give me something more than infinitely supreme being.
Full disclosure: The basis for my belief in no supreme “being” is that science has already proven that we are all instinctively fond of fairy tales and use them to comfort our insecurities. That and modern physics are more than enough for me to fully reject the notion of any god existing, especially in all the ways god has been defined by different religions. I still believe in yet to be explained supernatural forces, and that’s the closest I can get to the notion of God... but even that is just a physics footnote. I wholly reject any connection between that and morality or justice or any man-created principles. Nothing necessarily awful about that, but it is all in our human heads.
God created physics, what man thinks, etc. He put what is in your head in your head.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
It is possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt. Do you acknowledge that God might NOT exist?
When looking at unknowns like the beginning of the universe and then what is beyond the universe, it is extremely unlikely that a God, something we can wrap our brains around because we took His form, is the creator of that.
It is no more likely that God exists than it is that David Koresh was God or that Donald Trump is a good person or, as I already said, that monkeys might fly out of my butt. So, to answer your question, YES it is possible, but it is also possible any God that knows our thoughts and everything about everything is really a marmoset in Paraguay.
No, I don't acknowledge that God might not exist. I find it to be 100% likely that he does exist.
Why?
Fat hurts wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Unless you can define what an infinitely supreme being is/does instead of relying on “I just feel/believe” then all I can assume is you have no idea what you are talking about. No offense meant at all - but for this topic to have any real meat to discuss there has to be a starting point, a tangible subject... give me something more than infinitely supreme being.
Full disclosure: The basis for my belief in no supreme “being” is that science has already proven that we are all instinctively fond of fairy tales and use them to comfort our insecurities. That and modern physics are more than enough for me to fully reject the notion of any god existing, especially in all the ways god has been defined by different religions. I still believe in yet to be explained supernatural forces, and that’s the closest I can get to the notion of God... but even that is just a physics footnote. I wholly reject any connection between that and morality or justice or any man-created principles. Nothing necessarily awful about that, but it is all in our human heads.
You are right. Just knowing that an infinitely supreme being exists is not enough. We need language and context. This is provided in scripture and tradition and scholarship. We can talk about that later if you like. But right now, I'm more interested in another question.
Why put your faith in science instead of God?
Science is interesting and useful, but it will never answer the truly important questions.
What questions are those?
Danny Democrat wrote:
The last time Trump tweeted about "The Caravan" was Oct 31. 13 days ago.
That's also the last time he made any reference to "troops," "Army," or "military" on the border.
This huge invasion that was such a threat to our national security, what happened to it?
Same thing that happened to the REpubs taking healthcare away from everyone.
Scare tactics to get the base to the polls.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are right. Just knowing that an infinitely supreme being exists is not enough. We need language and context. This is provided in scripture and tradition and scholarship. We can talk about that later if you like. But right now, I'm more interested in another question.
Why put your faith in science instead of God?
Science is interesting and useful, but it will never answer the truly important questions.
To me science has answered many most important questions and definitively, such as what is our origin, our rooted connection to our environment (evolution), it clarifies major historical contradictions introduced in the Bible (age of earth, how dinasours could have existed if earth is only thousands of years old, etc..). Most people have accepted a version of God that was presented through man-written scriptures. There are too many derivatives there, none of which offer any concrete connection to the referenced all powerful being.
If simple “belief” is the primary basis for the existence of God then I reject the idea of God because beliefs and thoughts are biological elements, again it’s all in our heads. That there might be an infinitely powerful being out there and that there might be a hell and heaven or a devil and angels - all based on ancient man-written scriptures, is simply not a compelling enough argument for me live my life in accordance with certain defined biblical principles. I’ve extended my argument further to include religions but you get the point.
Like flagpole said, you seem to be a good person - and that matters to me more than whatever religion or belief system you have (unless that religion mandates you to do bad things). If interested in how my views are mostly aligned, read Sapiens. That book dissects our existence well and just happens to explain exactly why there is no God as defined by religions.
FH - Do you think Trolliminator is going to Hell for his thoughts and actions?
Danny Democrat wrote:
The last time Trump tweeted about "The Caravan" was Oct 31. 13 days ago.
That's also the last time he made any reference to "troops," "Army," or "military" on the border.
This huge invasion that was such a threat to our national security, what happened to it?
Par for the course for President Dog Whistle. The bigger issue is that the "liberal" media gave the caravan endless attention leading up to the election, too. They all pretended it was a real issue because Trump pretended it was a real issue. Now they've moved on as well. Always important to remember that the fourth estate isn't actually on our side.
Hey look, we now have a woman beating creepy porn lawyer. Lock him up!
http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-arrested-domestic-violence-stormy-daniels-attorney/
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
No, I don't acknowledge that God might not exist. I find it to be 100% likely that he does exist.
Ok. Good on you. I won't ask you any more questions. The rest of this thread shows more about the person you are than your professed faith, and from what I see, you are a good one. I'll just go with that.
By the way, I wouldn't let the trolls troll you with questions anymore. You don't have to defend your position to anyone.
I really don't mind. Thanks for the compliment.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Hey look, we now have a woman beating creepy porn lawyer. Lock him up!
http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-arrested-domestic-violence-stormy-daniels-attorney/
Look! Squirrel!
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Michael Cohen pleaded GUILTY to two FELONY counts of Campaign Finance Law Violation. He said Trump told him to make those payments, and a report in the Wall Street Journal says that Trump was involved in just about every stage of those payments. If that is not a felony, then why did Cohen plead guilty to two felonies? If AD believes otherwise, then he is wrong. I'll go with currently working attorneys and judges rather than a Trump apologizer legal has been.
Yes, I'd like TTH to tell us where Dershowitz says Tiny is innocent of the campaign finance felonies that Cohen pleaded guilty to. I don't think Dershowitz ever said that.
I think I remember Dershowitz saying that Tiny was in trouble on that one.
Cohen, never should have made the payments, Trump should have just paid himself. But freedom of Commerce laws and other freedom laws indicate people to have the Constitutional right to spend their money as they see fit including paying off porn stars that he may of had an affair with, when was running for President. Cohen never declared what he did, not really related to Russia though.
Trollminator wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are right. Just knowing that an infinitely supreme being exists is not enough. We need language and context. This is provided in scripture and tradition and scholarship. We can talk about that later if you like. But right now, I'm more interested in another question.
Why put your faith in science instead of God?
Science is interesting and useful, but it will never answer the truly important questions.
To me science has answered many most important questions and definitively, such as what is our origin, our rooted connection to our environment (evolution), it clarifies major historical contradictions introduced in the Bible (age of earth, how dinasours could have existed if earth is only thousands of years old, etc..). Most people have accepted a version of God that was presented through man-written scriptures. There are too many derivatives there, none of which offer any concrete connection to the referenced all powerful being.
If simple “belief” is the primary basis for the existence of God then I reject the idea of God because beliefs and thoughts are biological elements, again it’s all in our heads. That there might be an infinitely powerful being out there and that there might be a hell and heaven or a devil and angels - all based on ancient man-written scriptures, is simply not a compelling enough argument for me live my life in accordance with certain defined biblical principles. I’ve extended my argument further to include religions but you get the point.
Like flagpole said, you seem to be a good person - and that matters to me more than whatever religion or belief system you have (unless that religion mandates you to do bad things). If interested in how my views are mostly aligned, read Sapiens. That book dissects our existence well and just happens to explain exactly why there is no God as defined by religions.
You and I follow different books.
If beliefs and thoughts are merely biological elements, then we are just creatures of biological imperative. Therefore, there is no free will. And life has no meaning.
This is why science is really bad at answering the truly important questions. It is only allowed to explain things in terms of the natural world. This is fine as long as the questions are confined to that domain. But when you start to ask truly interesting questions like "Why are we here?" and "What is the meaning of life?" and "What is truth?" and "What is the nature of good and evil?", science simply isn't equipped to help you.
I think it is the answers to questions like those that keep us discussing politics on this thread. Political discussion is a proxy for philosophical discussion. It's a lot more interesting and important than science.
Subway Surfers wrote:
Cohen, never should have made the payments, Trump should have just paid himself. But freedom of Commerce laws and other freedom laws indicate people to have the Constitutional right to spend their money as they see fit including paying off porn stars that he may of had an affair with, when was running for President. Cohen never declared what he did, not really related to Russia though.
Is needing to work on English skills, comrade.
This thread gonna be lit tomorrow morning.
Flagpole margin call incoming
Hardloper wrote:
kibitzer wrote:
The economy is bound to take a downturn, though this may or may not happen during the Trump presidency. I suspect it will happen during this four-year term, but I could be wrong; in any case, I doubt it would happen before late 2019, at the very earliest.
Why do you think there will be a downturn in late 2019 or 2020?
Strangely enough, "USA Today" has a nice summary of some of my concerns, especially what's happening with the yield curve.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2018/09/05/recession-signs-getting-closer/37630241/But I'm also looking globally, and the current restriction of international trade by Trump and others is already hurting, and is going to hurt much more IMO.
The funny thing about that is that, yes, I suspect a trade war will directly hurt China more than us; but a hurt China means the U.S. will hurt, though there should be a lag of some months (unless China's economy collapses completely, which I doubt)--hence my projection of late 2019 or thereafter.
As before, let me be clear: I could be wrong. An econ/finance degree does not necessarily make me a prognosticator, and the whole point about macroeconomics is that it's macro: there are many factors involved.
PS--If and when the downturn in the U.S. comes, I fear it will be fairly sharp. Because we're already artificially stimulating the economy, we're not likely to be able to stimulate our way out.
What do folks make of Melania's public demand for the firing of Mira Ricardel?
I can't avoid the conclusion that this is (among other things) a power play of Melania dominating Donald. I mean, why else take her demand to the public rather than talking privately with Donald about her wishes. She called him out, publicly humiliated him and forced him to do her bidding. He really had no choice. What would the public have said if Donald had not acquiesced to her demand.
Basically, Melania just made Donald her b!tch. No?
Washington (AFP) - President Donald Trump on Wednesday said Democrats wearing disguises and voting more than once were responsible for Republican losses in tight congressional elections.
Trump claimed, without providing any evidence, that blatant use of fake voters in disguise had swung close elections.
"When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It's really a disgrace what’s going on," Trump said.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Hey look, we now have a woman beating creepy porn lawyer. Lock him up!
http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-arrested-domestic-violence-stormy-daniels-attorney/
Flagpole’s boy going down by the minute. I will say this, he is innocent until proven guilty. Outside of trolling Flagpole I wouldn’t rush to judgment.
Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Look, SQUIRREL!!!
Oooh, squirrel. ?
Danny Democrat wrote:
The last time Trump tweeted about "The Caravan" was Oct 31. 13 days ago.
That's also the last time he made any reference to "troops," "Army," or "military" on the border.
This huge invasion that was such a threat to our national security, what happened to it?
The good news is that there's 5k-10k troops at the border awaiting the "invasion" with what most thinking people would refer to as a complete waste of the military's time.