No, but can you prove that with information from TMNT cartoons/movies/games?Maybe the rat went and fucked mary,and you worship splinter from T.M.N.T...Ever think of that..
The passion for your religion is clouding your mind, I never said there is a god, I'm not the religious one in this discussion.Maybei have no doubts.god does not exist..try to put doubt there all you want.you havent seen him,never will see him,and if you say you have,or have witnessed miracles,or ghosts,then youre mentally ill,and i suggest help.if you dont seek help,i guess you can throw your money at a guy ina suit promising you a better life,but only delivering the hope you keep wallowing in,instead of the promises you seek..
know why theres so many blonde christians?
all the bleach in the brainwash.
I'm the most modest man in the entire universe in all dimensions so good luck with that man.im gonna go pray this bowl gets me higher than the level of your ego.
Really? What part of my poster was not accurate?absolute bollocks and if you think thats true ......your in for a big surprise
i can prove it..t.m.n.t are fake,just like god..if youre not trying to convince me,why all the rhetoric?..the title clearly says my beliefs.No, but can you prove that with information from TMNT cartoons/movies/games?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not religion nor to steer you away from your own. I have no desire to do so.
The passion for your religion is clouding your mind, I never said there is a god, I'm not the religious one in this discussion.
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they use them as controls in double blind trials.
I'm the most modest man in the entire universe in all dimensions so good luck with that man.
No, but can you prove that with information from TMNT cartoons/movies/games?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, certainly not religion nor to steer you away from your own. I have no desire to do so.
The passion for your religion is clouding your mind, I never said there is a god, I'm not the religious one in this discussion.
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None, they use them as controls in double blind trials.
I'm the most modest man in the entire universe in all dimensions so good luck with that man.
no,im italian.sorry to dissapoint you.i know you want big black cock,your "cuckhold" comments tell me that(i had to look the term up..you got a weird fetish,but i cant judge,i like watchin my wife with people too..but they are hot women..to each their own.)rory .....are you white?
How can something that doesn't exist according to science create something as scientific as a lightbulb? If you would be right about there being a god that could create, then I think the sun and the stars are better examples than a burning bush.light bulb..made by science..how many lightbulbs god make?
just a burning bush as far as i can see.
damn..all the same.lies.lolHow can something that doesn't exist according to science create something as scientific as a lightbulb? If you would be right about there being a god that could create, then I think the sun and the stars are better examples than a burning bush.
Lightbulbs are made possible by another of the four fundamental forces of nature, the electromagnetic force. It exists. Using it doesn't prove anything apart from that it exists. A religious person could argue that is just another of God's super powers.
Imagine being an bystander and some scientist says "my science resulted in a light bulb" and and a religious person saying "my religion result in the sun, the stars and everything in the universe, including the atoms that make up the light bulb". Objectively the latter wins.
How is a lightbulb any more convincing than a wooden wheel? Because it's more complex? So the more scientifically complex the more proof it is? That's how TV priests or whatever they call themselves do too. They overload someone with so much religion that some start to consider it as the truth. Science took that to a whole 'nother level.
Realistically, both in the above example are making a positive claim, thus are subject to the burden of proof. Person A with the light bulb, if knowledgeable, could demonstrate the process of creating the bulb. This process, if done correctly, can be repeated by others and will work the same way each and every time. Person B claiming that a deity created those things would likewise be obligated to demonstrate that his claims are what he states. Person A would be meeting the Burden of Proof for his positive claim, while Person B could not. That seems to be a substantial difference. One method seems a more credible than the other in the search for knowledge regarding objective reality...Imagine being an bystander and some scientist says "my science resulted in a light bulb" and and a religious person saying "my religion result in the sun, the stars and everything in the universe, including the atoms that make up the light bulb". Objectively the latter wins.
The scientific method yields the most accurate information regarding objective reality that we have at any given time. It is a method whose answers are limited to the technology of the day, so its accumulated body of knowledge is always open to revision and addition as new tech becomes available. It carefully observes nature and uses logic to form hypotheses as non-bias explanations of observed phenomena. It then doubts its conclusions and does its best to falsify them. If its conclusions withstand all attempts to discredit them, they become theory that is open to addition and revision as time passes and technology advances. Its claims are verifiable and its experimental proof is repeatable by others. The scientific method has spawned every major value that we use daily, and is at the vehicle of all major human progress. It seems that the dogma relayed by TV evangelists pales in comparison…How is a lightbulb any more convincing than a wooden wheel? Because it's more complex? So the more scientifically complex the more proof it is? That's how TV priests or whatever they call themselves do too. They overload someone with so much religion that some start to consider it as the truth. Science took that to a whole 'nother level.
its complecated.Really? What part of my poster was not accurate?
where all god buddy.....every fucking one of usLook, I'm the Messiah and you"re just going to have to live with that. All of these false messiahs are giving me a bad name. I encourage rational debate about my existence and big breasts. The bigger, the better I like it.
I'm thinking about a breast-centric off-shoot from the big three mono-theocratic hallucinations. How about Breastianity or Titlam or Mammism. Who's with me?
Both examples make a positive CLAIM...only ones making a positive impact,the other is slowly eating the world and humanity alive...Realistically, both in the above example are making a positive claim, thus are subject to the burden of proof. Person A with the light bulb, if knowledgeable, could demonstrate the process of creating the bulb. This process, if done correctly, can be repeated by others and will work the same way each and every time. Person B claiming that a deity created those things would likewise be obligated to demonstrate that his claims are what he states. Person A would be meeting the Burden of Proof for his positive claim, while Person B could not. That seems to be a substantial difference. One method seems a more credible than the other in the search for knowledge regarding objective reality...
The scientific method yields the most accurate information regarding objective reality that we have at any given time. It is a method whose answers are limited to the technology of the day, so its accumulated body of knowledge is always open to revision and addition as new tech becomes available. It carefully observes nature and uses logic to form hypotheses as non-bias explanations of observed phenomena. It then doubts its conclusions and does its best to falsify them. If its conclusions withstand all attempts to discredit them, they become theory that is open to addition and revision as time passes and technology advances. Its claims are verifiable and its experimental proof is repeatable by others. The scientific method has spawned every major value that we use daily, and is at the vehicle of all major human progress. It seems that the dogma relayed by TV evangelists pales in comparison…
Did you read this whole thread yet?I did see the evidence, more than you will know for a while.