God does not exist

yeah, I guess I did say funny.
You know what is even funnier, is that after all these thousands of years there are still people who perceive themselves as adults and "enlightened" that still believe in supernatural beings. I laugh about that all the time.

 

You laugh about that all the time because those who believe whatever, are less than natural beings?

 

Do you know what "supernatural" means?

 

Relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws.

Do you know what less than natural means?

 

Yep, I sure do:
Less means
to a smaller extent, amount, or degree: less exact.

Natural means: 1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial ): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

I do prefer this definition for supernatural:
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

So, if you know what supernatural means, why did you ask me if I laughed about "less than natural beings"? Did you intend to purposely misinterpret what I said?

 

I didn't misinterpret what you said.

Do you feel it unnatural that minds exposed to differing stimuli, nurture, or inherent proclivities should be at different stages of development, and therefor worthy of ridicule?

 

Those who ignorantly believe in a higher being are not at a particular stage of mental development. They're mere fools absolutely worthy of ridicule.

 

How did they get to be that way?

 

You tell me.

Your developmental theory infers that they may one day realize the err of their beliefs, but that is not the case in most instances.

 

I think you did intentionally misinterpret what I said and put in your "less than natural" statement to confuse what I said, since what I said and what you said are two different things, and you are now doing it again.

If you would like to talk with me, then you will have to stop changing what I say, and finish one subject. You are now asking an entirely different question.

If you are asking do I laugh at people who believe in supernatural events or entities, then the answer, like I already said, is yes. I would give my reasoning, but that would only cause you to muddle the conversation further.

When you agree to complete one conversation before moving on to another, I will be happy to talk to you some more. Until then, there is no point in continuing a conversation where one party intentionally misinterprets what the other party says and creates an entirely different issue.

 

well , you don't say much and even at that it isn't conversational
in this forum .:sunny: oh say , how you spose it'l be thousands of years
from now ? if jesus ne'r returns , do you think there can be peace ?
:sunny: an enlightened yoo might say jesus never will return and there
shall be peace . good is good is good . irie , ha ha . the church choir
:sunny:will just retort , humm , jesus is the peace and donut the earth
and heaven sing so sweet together now .

 

I thought it was a pretty clear statement, and if memory serves, it was in response to another comment. Is there a quota of words required for any given statement?

1. I couldn't say how it will be thousands of years from now, since foretelling the future is impossible.
2. I don't think the supposed christian Jesus ever existed.
3. Sure, there can be peace. When people start thinking rationally and not emotionally.
4. An enlightened me thinks there never was a Jesus such as christianity espouses. There is probably a better chance for peace without such a supernatural entity anyway. If he did exist, where the hell is he and why is he not getting some peace happening now?
5. Quote: "good is good is good . irie , ha ha ." Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Quote: "the church choir
6. :sunny:will just retort with jesus is the peace and donut the earth and
heaven sing so sweet together now" Not sure what this is supposed to mean either. Is it possible you are high?

 

According to what polling data? My theory infers that you may one day realize the error, if any, in your beliefs.

 

the music dies

 

Since there is no empirical, objective proof that a higher being exists, it is in fact obvious that the believer is in grievous error of rational and logical thought.

 

No, it is not in fact obvious. If you posit no higher being exists, then no lower being, such as in grievous error of rational and logical thought, making you higher, exists either.

 

No.

I never believed according to your description.

I do believe the sun shines on all alike.

 

I think you should review the record.

How could I possibly change what you say? I answered your question/s, and I am now asking a question of you. If you have more to say on the previous subject then go for it. Don't call me a liar because you ran out of depth.

And what did you say was funny about it?

You can't keep up?

You have no hope of contending with me on an equal basis or you are at an extreme disadvantage because you think I am trying to befuddle you. If you hope to present yourself well in conversation with me, you need to transcend your ignorant position.

 

1. Actually, I think you should review the record. I made a statement, you made one entirely different.
2. You never answered any of my statements, you posted statements about something entirely different than what I said. Read back and you will see, or maybe you are incapable of that, I don't know.
3. I never called you a liar, then. I said you did not answer my statements. You posted something entirely different. I am calling you a liar now though, since you persist in intentionally misunderstanding what I said.
4. I never did say what was funny about it. We never got that far because you kept changing the issue.
5. I can't keep up with a mental case. For some reason you are unwilling to give a straight answer on any of the subjects pertaining to what I said.

For instance, I said: "yeah, I guess I did say funny.
You know what is even funnier, is that after all these thousands of years there are still people who perceive themselves as adults and "enlightened" that still believe in supernatural beings. I laugh about that all the time. "

YOU said: "You laugh about that all the time because those who believe whatever, are less than natural beings? "

Supernatural, and "less than natural" are two entirely different things, so your statement was not something I even said.

My reply to that was to define what the two different statements meant.

YOU did not bother to verify or deny that what I said was right or wrong in your opinion regarding those definitions. What you did do was to change the subject again, by saying "Do you feel it unnatural that minds exposed to differing stimuli, nurture, or inherent proclivities should be at different stages of development, and therefor worthy of ridicule? "
This is an entirely different subject again.

For some reason, you refuse to engage in what could be considered a normal conversation where one person makes a statement, and you answer it with a statement that actually pertains to what the other person says. I don't know if you have a mental condition, are a troll, or just an asshole, but like I said after all the bullshit yesterday, if you want to talk to me, then stay on the subject and quit trying to sound like some sort of intellectual, because you can't pull it off.