Lots of newbies around in 2015 Sarge, most still learning the ropes. Be kind, giggle up your sleeve.

Not talking about the newbies. Really, the words/thoughts put on me make no sense given what the respondents know of me. That they missed a suggested link is also odd.

Sometimes your posting style is very opaque.

There are times for it and reasons for the times.
It should not be difficult to understand what I was getting at in that particular post.
Did you follow the link?

I saw it was a link to that duck dynasty fellow, I didn't watch the video, I have no interest in anything he has to say, I don't really know who he is as I don't watch the show. I suspect he was spouting some religious claptrap. I wasn't sure why it was relevant except of an example of the religious thinking that seems very common in the US.

---

Reality Internet Personality

...
3. gay sex is all about dominance & submission - analog 2 animal kind...even in old Greek a small boy would give himself 2 older man, but when he grows up he would dominate other boys...so nothing has changed!
also, all faiths says we r all equal...
;)

Well this is bizarre..I have never heard this claim before...i take it you don't know many gay people and you are also ignorant of how heterosexual intercourse has been used to dominate people?

This is probably one of the strangest claims I have seen written on this forum and that is saying something.

I have heard this claim. Probably more than once. Having heard it is not a comment about whether fact or not.

Same here.

Did you follow the link?

My time is more valuable than watching an a$$hole fart in super slow motion.

This thread his done it's purpose, and God deems it vclosed.


Get back to ya later.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Es and Gary, it was your two responses that surprised me and if you do not follow/watch the video at the link then you miss the point I am trying to make. (Which is surely not the same as his.) My point is also to get Es to either expand on her earlier comments on finding solace or perhaps reverse her views.

Es and Gary, it was your two responses that surprised me and if you do not follow/watch the video at the link then you miss the point I am trying to make. (Which is surely not the same as his.) My point is also to get Es to either expand on her earlier comments on finding solace or perhaps reverse her views.

Hints for future: The visual channel operates at a higher bandwidth than the auditory one. Sometimes Evelyn Wood comes in handy. I also pay zero heed to Hollywood types in any matter other than the art of telling lies.

---

Es and Gary, it was your two responses that surprised me and if you do not follow/watch the video at the link then you miss the point I am trying to make. (Which is surely not the same as his.) My point is also to get Es to either expand on her earlier comments on finding solace or perhaps reverse her views.

You could have just asked me to expand on it.

Are you aware that groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous are religious in their nature? There are many people who need those groups to be able to function.

There are many people who have been through terrible trauma who need the idea of god to find a reason to keep living.

Donald duck dynasty or whoever that was has absolutely nothing to do with any point I was making and I was rather surprised that you thought it did.

Some of us are quite capable of coping with adversity without the need for a religious crutch. Not everyone is quite so fortunate. I am not so eager to snatch their support away from them even if I don't personally agree with it.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yes, I do Believe/

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

All I can tell you is this;.................

If there is a void in one's life.
God shall provide.

If hurt and pain at times seems too much to overcome.
God shall provide.

Somehow, and perhaps not in the manner you may wish HIm to.
But, somehow, someway//\

Even if you die in his arms, if you believe, you have been saved.

Not trying to change anybody, just offering a hand..................
And I w0uld pull you in if you find yourself drowning.

I shall offer you my hand, and try to pull you up.
And I shall not release your hand just because you scream that MY god is not the same god you know or acknowlege.
\
God/...........shall provide.

He has taken my hand so many times recently. And I know if I reach out, he shall again.

My God not need be YOUR God, if any you may have or have not.

My only wish is that, as God has forgven me my many sins in my belief................
He shall forgive you somehow for not believing he is there for you.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

And I'll tell you thie........................
Do you actually believe that the chemical complexities that enable us to survive and think and breath happened by chance out of the primordial muck?

No, I don't think so................

And neither do you.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

And ya know, klds.///
Here it is in a nutshell.
LOL:...if it saves ME a bit of hustl;e and blustle on that dayu........
It is my fatih................and I Believe.

Every day that I arrise, I know that God has blessed me with another day on this earth.
And I kiss my kltties and cry just a few tears for being allowed to participate in another day here on earth.

\I am so thankful that God has not chosen this to be my day to travel onward.
Not that I fear it, but I do not think I am worthy of the journey just yet.

I am getting close.

I have sinned so many times before my saviour I can only pray that he shall forgive me and save my soul as the bible promises he shall.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

If you ever happen to be speaking about the presence of a possible God, it could well be because of a political purpose, or state of mind.

Our moderator, Es99, apparently makes a stance against certain things as abortion, or possibly the opposite way around, anti-abortion.

Who are supposed to think, or believe that I do still exist, as a person, even though the world may be full of obstacles?

Is a perfect world better able to explain the possible notion of God, or is the usual assumption that the world is full of mistakes and fallibles a possible better way to explain whether or not God does exist at all?

Such a presence or existence currently is supposed to be explained, or at least acknowledged, by means of applying theology for such a purpose. You do not even have to be philosophical in order to be able to do such a thing.

If you are supposed to be intelligent, you also may be able to have a conscience.

Please define what conscience in fact is supposed to mean.

Is an attempt at understanding particles of microcosmos and the galaxies or galaxies or clusters of galaxies of macrocosmos better at giving a possible notion of God, or is such a possible presence only being possibly assumed or possibly explained by means of applying theology alone?

Theology might be supposed to be a possible tool of understanding the Bible, but even the Book of Revelation is not supposed to explain why the universe does exist.

Again, science is supposed to be about one thing or another, but not necessarily this or that thing either.

Not speaking about God, but those who proclaim him most vociferously, I find there are an inordinate number like this person: http://mynewsla.com/orange-county/2015/09/04/former-sunday-school-teacher-gets-60-years-to-life-for-sexually-molesting-5-boys/

---

And I'll tell you thie........................
Do you actually believe that the chemical complexities that enable us to survive and think and breath happened by chance out of the primordial muck?

No, I don't think so................

And neither do you.

Mark, I do not think that you understand evolution and natural selection. Our species is not some pinnacle of evolution. Pinnacles of evolution do not exist!!! Our species and the ancestors of our species simply had the right stuff to match a very, very, very, very, very long string of evolutionary pressures.

And please do not presume to know what any of us thinks.

---

Mark is supposed to believe in a God even if he is not supposed to be preaching either.

Evolution is about development, something which is happening as a result of creation.

Some people think of creation as being the result of a divine. Therefore we assume a divine creator for being the result of our existence.

Religion is not supposed to be about neither the creation or our possible existence, but rather something else.

This means that there could be quite a number of people around thinking that as usual the possible notion of an existence of God better should be explained by means of the subject of theology and not something else, including any given or specific subjects which are being related to science.

Religion alone is not supposed to be able to explain that our current notion of our world, including our existence, is by means of applying the scientific method on observable facts, like the Standard model of particle Physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

You already know, the Higgs boson is supposed to be the "God particle".

Doing this or such a thing, you readily assume that God is responsible for our current existence and the notion of God better could or should be explained by means of applying theology on such a thing and rather not anything else.

At least science is not supposed to be carried out in the best way by means of having a specific or certain belief, including a possible belief in God.

If you happen to be an atheist or an agnostic, this whole discussion becomes irrelevant and of no value.

You already know, the Higgs boson is supposed to be the "God particle".

That is not true.
Higgs collegues called it the "God damn particle".
Just for fun but the expression was changed by the media.
Now some scientists believe it was found but that the particle is something else.

@janneseti

The thread title is "existance of god".

I did not start this thread.

Why not keep to the subject in the same way as I am trying to do?

Edit:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78077&postid=1721645

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78077&postid=1721505

Read here for a quite good post which is a response to a post by Brutus.

Edit: So I did and it is a quite good one.

Really, the subject of "belief" is the subject of making a distinction between love and passion and war, destruction and mistrust on the other.

If you ever are supposed to be holding the hands of a person who is about to die, it is because you wish to say farewell and good luck on the journey?

Heaven is supposed to be telling about the place you are supposed to go when you are no more. Wherever you may possibly go, it could well be somewhere else.

Whether or not such a thing is supposed to be science, Heaven and Hell are still two separate and distinct places and for now being more about the subject of religion rather than something else.

For some reason, you may end up believing in the presence of God whether or not you choose to select one thing for another.

Possibly back to the question about whether religion is supposed to be better at explaining these things, rather than science alone.

@janneseti

The thread title is "existance of god".

I did not start this thread.

Why not keep to the subject in the same way as I am trying to do?

Edit:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78077&postid=1721645

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=78077&postid=1721505

Read here for a quite good post which is a response to a post by Brutus.

But you are very off topic.
Your link to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
has nothing to do with gods!

And you are wrong about the Higgs boson and how it was found!!!
No Gods involved in that discovery.

@janneseti

With respect to those people who are assuming that science best is being carried out by means of trying to understand the concepts of science, by means of trying to understand or give an explanation for scientific phenomena, my explanation, or possibly view on this subject probably is the better option when it comes to this subject.

Myths and superstition alone is not supposed to be giving an explanation for everything, even though certain things should be open for a debate.

@janneseti

With respect to those people who are assuming that science best is being carried out by means of trying to understand the concepts of science, my explanation, or possibly view on this subject probably is the better option when it comes to this subject.

@musicplayer
What is your explanation to this subject?
You don't even understand the concepts of science!