RSS
Lawyer and philosophy professor Sterling Harwood, author of The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles, emailed me to ask: “Did the literal interpretation of Christianity just die on Mars?” He explained that one of NASA’s Mars rovers may have found traces of ancient microbial life. So how would that impact Christianity? Sterling: “Genesis, interpreted literally, implies life was created on earth, not independently (of God) on Mars.” Um, okay.
Sterling also claims that the Bible supports flat earthism, and supplies the following scriptural citations and flat earthism references, drawn from his assignment for philosophy students:
A COLLECTION OF 26 FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY THEORY QUOTES YOU MAY CHOOSE FROM TO INCLUDE AS A-SECTIONS IN ABC SETS FOR TERM PAPERS AND/OR CLASS PARTICIPATION; REMEMBER: FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY THEORY IS THE EASIEST OF THE 125 OR SO TERM PAPER TOPICS. NOW I’VE MADE IT EVEN EASIER BY ROUNDING UP THESE 26 QUOTES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER USING IN YOUR TERM PAPER OR CLASS PARTICIPATION ABC SETS ON FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY THEORY.
* * * * *
FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY THEORY QUOTES YOU MAY USE IN YOU A-SECTIONS &/OR C-SECTIONS (REMEMBER, SOMETIMES YOU CAN PIT ONE QUOTE AGAINST ANOTHER OR YOU CAN SOMETIMES CORROBORATE ONE QUOTE WITH ANOTHER). See biblehub.com for one good place to start reading interpretations of these parts of the Bible.
1. Daniel 4:11 = “The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = MAKE THE TREE AS HIGH AS YOU LIKE, YOU CAN NEVER SEE THROUGH THE OPAQUE EARTH IF YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLOBE FROM THE TREE. SO, THIS PART OF THE BIBLE IMPLIES THE EARTH IS NOT A GLOBE.
2. Job 38:14 = “As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = When softer material such as clay is pressed beneath a seal, it is flattened. The seal is not the animal ‘seal’ here. The seal is like a metal stamp you use to press wax flat across the back of an envelope to seal the envelop shut and prevent tampering with the envelope.
3. Isaiah 40:22 = “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = The stretch something out suggests a flat result, since to get a sphere or globe, one would have to ball up the material rather than stretch it out. To stretch and to ball are opposites. So, this part of the Bible seems incompatible with the earth being a sphere, globe or ball.
4. “[According to many flat earthers] Earth’s gravity is an illusion.” ~ Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff, Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?, Article, May 30, 2017 10:24am ET. Harwood’s Helpful Hint: Flat earthers are forced to deny the existence of gravity, since gravity — by pulling in all directions from the center of gravity — explains why the sun and all the planets we observe were formed as globes (spheres).
5. Revelation 7:1 = “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = Spheres lack corners. Squares and rectangles, which are flat or flatter than spheres of the same volume or mass, do have corners.
6. Matthew 4:8 = “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT: See my hint in Quote #1 above. Make the mountain as high as you like, you can never see through the opaque earth to see anything on the opposite side of the globe from the mountaintop. So, this part of the Bible implies the earth is not a globe.
7. Job 37:18 = “… can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = See my hint in Quote #3 above about how spreading suggests or implies flattening or a flat result, and how spreading — by being the opposite of balling (as in balling up a piece of flat paper) — is incompatible with forming a globe.
8. Job 26:7 = “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = See my hints in Quotes #3 & #7 to see how spreading is the opposite of balling and thus is incompatible with forming a globe.
9. Isaiah 11:12 = “He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = See my hint in Quote #5 above about how globes lack corners but how thinner, flatter shapes (of the same mass or volume as a sphere) of squares and rectangles have corners.
10. “The leading flat-earth theory holds that Earth is a disc with the Arctic Circle in the center and Antarctica, a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim.” ~ Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff, Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?,” Article, May 30, 2017 10:24am ET. HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = Flat earthers are forced into this extreme position in order to try to explain why no one has ever simply walked up to the edge of the flat world and seen the flat edge of the earth. But since aircraft and spacecraft easily soar over 150 feet in altitude, the flat earthers still fail to explain why it is so hard or impossible to see the flat edges of the earth they claim exist instead of a sphere.
11. “Evidence that the earth is flat is all around us. For example, if the earth were a sphere, then the curvature of the earth would be manifested in the physical landscape. But we do not see any curvature of the earth.” ~ Edward Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 22. HARWOOD’S HELPFUL HINT = See my file in Canvas “13 Big Problems for Flat Earthers.” There I tell you the stunning tale of how I, Dr. H, saw the curvature of the earth. I’ll never forget it. Now, you will never forget it either. Fun Fact: the way I saw the curvature of the earth is a way you can replicate yourself. Do try this at home or on a safe, high-rise balcony with an unobstructed 180-degree view of water taking up your entire visual field from left to right (or right to left).
12. For more quotes, see the film Behind the Curve on Netflix.
13. For more quotes, see all YouTube videos about the allegedly flat earth. Since so few publishers will publish views that the earth is flat, I make an exception to the usual rule that all A-section quotes must be published. Many YouTube videos are unpublished, but students may use them anyway to get A-section quotes on flat earth.
14. “It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the water…the face of the deep…without form or limits…just water.” ~ Robert P. J. Day, “Documenting the Existence of The International Flat Earth Society,” Article, 1993, p. 2. Note: flat earthers argue that since water always finds its own level, the role of water on earth means the earth is level (that is, flat).
15. “On Twitter, flat-Earth accounts posted about ‘FakeX’ and insisted that photos of Starman against a round Earth were Photoshopped.” ~ Stephanie Pappas, “Yup, Flat-Earthers Think the Falcon Heavy Launch Was a Conspiracy,” Article, February 7, 2018 03:13pm ET.
16. “Flat-earthers believe there must also be an invisible “anti-moon” that obscures the moon during lunar eclipses.” ~ Natalie Wolchover and Live Science Staff, “Are Flat-Earthers Being Serious?,” Article,May 30, 2017 10:24am ET.
17. “The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of [only] 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.” ~ Flat Earth Society, https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall , May 9, 2020).
18. “The evidence of a flat earth is easy to discern, once a person perceives what he is seeing around him. The horizon is always seen to be flat over water.” (Edward Hendrie “Chapter 13 Horizon Is Always Flat.” The Greatest Lie on Earth: Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe, Great Mountain Publishing, 2018, p. 252.)
19. “Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150-foot Ice Wall. [The] 150-foot Ice Wall is on the coast of Antarctica. The Ice Wall is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica.” (Flat earth society. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall , May 9, 2020), hyphenation added.
20. “There is an unseen celestial body which moves around the Sun, located over the daylight side of the Earth. Known as the Shadow Object or the Anti-moon, this body occasionally intersects light between the Sun and Moon and causes the Lunar Eclipse.” https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse , May 11, 2020.
21. “God has described the earth as his footstool. ‘Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?’ (Isaiah 66:1) Footstools are not spherical,” (Hendrie, Edward. The Greatest Lie on Earth. Great Mountain Publishing. 2017. P. 319).
22. “The only interpretation of the phenomenon of being able to see lighthouses and other structures many miles out at sea is that the earth is flat,” (Hendrie, Edward. The Greatest Lie on Earth. Great Mountain Publishing. 2017. P. 25).
23. “Water cannot be anything but perfectly flat. There is never any convexity to water, as would be required by a globular earth,” ~ Edward Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth, Great Mountain Publishing, 10th edition, 2017. p. 51.
24. “If the earth were a globe, the horizon would drop below the view of the observer on the airplane. The fact that the passenger sees the horizon always at eye level is proof that the earth is a flat plane. Eric Dubay explains the recent appearance of photographic trickery used in producing curved earth depictions in NASA and other high-altitude photographs.” ~ Edward Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth. Great Mountain Publishing. 2017, p. 110.
25. “The Coriolis Force is very real. If the earth were in fact a spinning globe, the Coriolis effect would be manifested. The problem is that there is no such Coriolis effect taking place on earth. Which means that the earth is not spinning. The different directions of rotation of hurricanes in northern and southern latitudes has nothing to do with the claimed Coriolis effect of the spinning earth.” ~ Edward Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth, 10 edition, Great Mountain Publishing. 2017. p. 124.
26. “Google Earth is a tool of propaganda designed to conceal the flat earth. Proof of that can be easily determined by anyone. Take any facing point on any physical sphere and rotate the sphere 360 degrees across and you will return the sphere to its original orientation with the starting point facing you. But when you take any facing point on Google Earth and then rotate the graphic of the earth in the [software] 360 degrees from east to west or vice versa, you will find that you have not returned to your starting point. You will need to continue turning the graphic an extra 90 degrees or so to get back to your starting point. Mike Helmick argues that the phenomenon described above is caused by the fact that Google Earth is a 3D globe being depicted on a 2D screen. He claims that it is therefore not possible to spin the Google Earth image precisely 360 degrees.” Edward Hendrie, The Greatest Lie on Earth, 10th edition, Great Mountain Publishing. 2017, p. 208.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Why do Muslims confuse and conflate race and religion ?
We often hear , ” Oh , Abraham was the first Muslim” by people who hate the old Hebrew’s genetic latter day continuity.
If Muslims mean that the Jewish patriarch was the first to invent monotheism , then they are mistaken.
That dubious accolade must surely belong to Zoroaster , a nod to whom is included in the mythology of the “three wise men”.
Hey Sterling. You know what they say about Italian men, right?
Wonderful fathers but horrible husbands.
First of all, Zoroaster didn’t exist (p. 7 of Die Entstehung einer Weltreligion V, Verlag Schiler & Mücke, Berlin und Tübingen 2020).
Then, the term “Muslim” itself is somewhat dubious: “(…) weil der Terminus ‘muslim’ selbst nach Hoyland erst 741 auftaucht / (…) because the word ‘muslim’ even according to Hoyland does but appear (in the year) 741” (foot note: Robert G. Hoyland, “The Content and Context of Early Arabic Inscriptions”, in: Arabic Awareness, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic & Islam, 21/3, 1997, 77-102), p. 206 of the above.
‘Flat Earth’ – Mind Control to Major Tom’ music vid with new lyrics the classic David Bowie tune, quite entertaining as well as presenting the flat earth perspective
Video Link
There has been plenty of time for microbes from Earth to be picked up and carried to Mars.
So, the presence of microbial life doesn’t “disprove” the Bible.
Must be a slow week in conspiracy land.
You don’t have to leave the home planet to understand the Bible is a compendium of myths and legends, an attempt by a pre-scientific culture to explain why things are the way they are, before people devised the tools to accurately make such assessments. And the Hebrews were particularly backward even in their own time, borrowing tale after tale from the great empires in which their little desert homeland was never more than a vassal province.
Time zones.
There are public webcams in many cities on Earth where you can go on the internet (you know, like you are now) and see the city in real time. So why is it midnight in Beijing and noonday in New York and sunrise in Oahu and sunset in London, exactly as if the sun were shining on a globe and not at all as if the Earth were flat?
This is not a ‘google conspiracy’ because many of these webcams are owned by various governments and private entities. Moreover, you can phone a random person in one of these cities and ask them where the sun is in the sky, and they’ll confirm (perhaps somewhat angrily if you wake them) what the webcam is showing. Also moreover, you can hop on an airplane and experience the shifting of time zones as you follow or move away from the sun across the globe, and when you land in the destination city, you’ll see that the webcam in that city agrees with the sky you see with your own eyes.
I await the complex mathematics that will be required for Flat Earthers to explain why the time zones of a Flat Earth have a quadrillion-to-one coincidence with the time zones one would see on a globe. At least the Flat Earthers will have to agree that seeing the Earth as a globe is a great mathematical simplification.
Seems like a lot of cognative infiltration going on.
NASA= Not A Space Agency
So what is it? It is a mind control agency used to shape perception of the physical world.
The earth is a by-and-large flat and is stationary. The sun, moon and stars are effectively local, luminescent phenomenon.
The notions of endless space, vast distances, planets, gravity, space travel, etc are utter nonsense meant to control you mentally by distorting your sense of the physical reality.
The sun, moon and stars are local and rotate above the earth. The earth is not floating in space because space doesn’t exist.
So he goes to geometry in order to prove that the quotes featuring angels and devils are unscientific.
Does he also teach a class poking holes in the science of Harry Potter books?
“Alright already. I will drive you to your bible-study-for-teens group at the church. But I wish you would quit that nonsense, it’s a bad influence on you.”
(said no parent ever)
Genesis, OT ain’t the Christian Bible (contrary to mistakes).
Life can sprout anywhere. This is God’s universe.
Satan, evil, dwelled in Palestine.
This is what Jesus came against.
(Muhammad’s(PBUH) children carry on the fight that Christians have lost sight of)
The battle is still on.
Focus on evil not microbes and silly questions.
Can’t believe we share the globe with adults who think the earth is flat. Children have an excuse. The ancients had an excuse. Maybe they’re just trolling us……ha ha….good one.
Anyone that relies on religion or what the bible says to explain reality is mentally challenged. Running into folks like that is just a constant reminder of how many truly stupid people there are on planet Earth. Here we are in the 21st century and there are still people that think the bible is a valid path to the truth. Just some musty old tales.
Sulu
Uh, we share this very website with people who deny the moon landings.
And yeah, someone needs to tell Sterling Harwood that he’s quoting the Jewish Torah, not Christian Doctrine.
I can’t understand why these morons sign off on their internet comments. Don’t they know their handle is above the comment? Or is it just some kind of petty narcissism?
Space is fake and gay.
Trouble is, every time a microbe is discovered on any object in space, the same question will arise. And there is no “plenty of time” either; if we believe the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, the whole universe is hardly a few thousand years old, not enough time for the microbes to reach other planets, much less than other planetary systems, and other galaxies.
Kim,
I bet I was taught proper writing form while you were still swimming around in your father’s balls. I don’t need some pretentious internet poser telling me how to write because he is butthurt that I just pissed on his religion.
I’m always amazed how people with a religious bent can start off a conversation by attempting to casually tell me what God wants as if something like that could be knowable to any human. If I inquire as to how they could possibly know what God wants they generally get a constipated look on their face, hesitate for a moment, and then launch into some tirade that at some point contains the phrase, “The Bible says….” If I persist by telling them that I hardly think any educated person could possibly believe the bible contains the words of some deity they tend to get emotional and launch into another tirade with more volume.
What was it the great bard said? “A tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
People that claim they know about God generally come in one of two classes. The first and by far the most numerous are the fools that are so abysmally ignorant, uneducated and stupid that they truly believe their own bullshit. They honestly think they know something about God. The much smaller class are the con men. The priests and other clergy that profit off the scam. Some of them may be true believers but most are, I suspect, just simple con men. They have an easy life provided to them by the first class. The fools that give them their hard earned money so as to prop them up. Because everyone knows that God needs money. Yes sir. And you will get your reward after you are dead.
One of the first tests of any intellect is religion. If you are taken in by that you will believe anything. I was born into a Catholic family and while I no longer can recall the event specifically my mother told me many years ago that I approached her at age 9 and told her I no longer believed in Jesus and I didn’t want to attend church any longer. Being a reasonable person my mother acquiesced and that was the end of my religious period. I suspect I came to the conclusion I did because by about 7 or 8 I figured out that Santa wasn’t real or the Easter Bunny either for that matter and Jesus sounded like more implausible bullshit. So the only logical thing to do was reject it. I mean the Romans crucify some guy 2000 years ago and he dies. Then 3 days later this dead guy that has got to be stinking by now somehow comes back to life and decides he needs to tell a few of his friends then bugger off to heaven. Oh, yeah I can see how that might happen. Sure. As the Brits would say, “Bollocks”
More than 50 years, two college degrees, a pilot’s license, and a few professional certificates later I have seen nothing that changes my mind about religion. In my opinion anyone that believes in God much past the age of 12 or so is intellectually suspect. If you make it well into your teen years without figuring out it’s a con you are truly stupid.
Sincerely,
Sulu
There are plenty of religious obscurantists out there. You seem to belong to an even more willfully ignorant category: the anti-religious obscurantists. Such people adamantly refuse to learn anything about religion. They are the equivalent of someone who denies that mathematics exists because he has never bothered to add up two plus two, and spends all his time lobbing ad hominems at the “ignorant people who believe in math.” Just as the math denier might remedy his defect with an elementary math course, the religion denier might do the same with an Intro to Comparative Religion course. Unfortunately, if he has no talent for religious understanding/experience, he may or may not get anywhere, just as someone with a very low math IQ might never understand addition and subtraction, or someone with a tin ear might not benefit from a Music Performance and Appreciation course.
BTW, here’s an amusing article by a totally non-religious person who has noticed that anti-religious obscurantists are vastly worse than religious ones: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/12/28/arrf/
“If you make it well into your teen years without figuring out it’s a con you are truly stupid.’
I cannot tell you what God wants all the time, in every situation in every place for everyone. not knowing that just means, i am not God. But of this i am certain, God wants a relationship with you and that is a personal dynamic. it is not hinged on anything save you talking to him and he talking to you. his invitation does not require anything more than a conversation. Should that day come, when you ask God to reveal, it is my sincere hope, you are listening, aware and perhaps brave enough to take him on. The mystery of Christ is ever eager to communicate.
just a note from stupid. Well, “truly stupid”.
Who ever said I was denying religion? Religion obviously exists. I’m just saying it’s a con based on lies. It was initially an attempt by pre-scientific people to explain the World they live in. It exists even today in somewhat fossilized form as a con to scam the marks out of their money. The one constant in every religion is, “Give us your money.” That pretty much lets you know that it’s a con. I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to believe giving their money to some scam artist is going to help them in the afterlife.
If you think I have no formal education in the subject I’m afraid you are wrong. I have more than you think. I hold a B.S degree in Geology and just for fun I got a B.A. in Philosophy. The existence of God is basic freshman Philosophy. And I was taught that there is no proof that God does in fact exist. And, for anyone that has had logic 101, the burden of proof always rests on the person making the claim. If you claim that God exists and I claim he doesn’t it isn’t up to me to prove that he doesn’t exist. It is up to you to prove that he does. That one little fact seems to slip by so many of the “willfully ignorant.” Most of them find it very inconvenient. But, alas, it is true. I also find it is usually people will little or no formal education that are unaware of that simple fact. Of course there are also the educated that pretend to be unaware of this simple principle of logic. I find most of those fall into the con man class.
Sulu
Ok Sulu (if that is your real name), you so smaht. Who is intelligent most. The writers of Bible, those who study and believe, or you (those who don’t).
My religion believes Bible is divinely inspired. Who is (past tense) in our Church? My university chemistry professor, my Dad (probably more credentialed than you), and, wait for it, Bobby Fisher. He probably the greatest raw intelligence on Earth.
All naive according to you.
Sorry sulu, we bad.
I watched a YouTube video explaining the Mandelbrot Set, told by, I assume a lady math PhD. She told me, and I belive her, quote, “The Flat Earth theory is wrong, but it is not stupid.” If a math wiz appreciates the FE story, so do I.
QED.
Could you possibly give that to me in English as opposed to Ebonics? Not that I think I have any responsibility to respond to someone that can’t even manage to write in coherent sentences.
Of course even though the bad news is you can’t write English the good news is you do make my case that true believers are the congenitally stupid.
Sulu
I would love to hear how you are certain about that. Did some old man with a long beard and flowing robes tap you on the shoulder one day, identify himself as God and give you the message personally? Did you maybe buy a bible in a book store only to notice later that it was signed by the author? Were you riding a horse during a thunderstorm and get struck by lighting, only to find when regaining consciousness that you had a new holy mission in life?
Let me guess. You are going to tell me that you arrived at your conclusion in some intuitive manner. Or perhaps you are going to tell me that you simply have a deep conviction that it’s true. Or somehow you just “know” it’s true.
Let me give you a little bit of truth from Mark Twain. “It’s easier to fool people that it is to persuade them that they have been fooled.” No truer words have ever been spoken.
Sulu
Everywhere you go on the earth, the local terrain is pretty well approximated by a (lumpy) flat plane. That’s why people believed the earth was flat. I agree that those people weren’t stupid. They went with what their eyes and their common sense told them. HOWEVER, at this time, what used to be excusable as understandable ignorance has transitioned over to bonafide stupidity. Don’t you agree, profnasty?
I write for the edification of people with a sense of humor. Those people are normally of good intelligence. I notice you have no sense of humor. Sorry for your predicament. Byee.
I notice that you are an idiot. And you are not nearly as funny as you think you are. Bye.
Sulu
After the twentieth “perhaps,” “has the potential,” “suggests,” “could be interpreted,” “hints at,” and just plain “if” made it clear that there was nothing here to see—except perhaps the fragments of an ermine kippah and a cheap plastic star of David—I realized that the entire point of Sterling Harwood’s silly bullying game might well be to conceal the fact that he himself is a Calvinist and a flat-earther. But then, what should one expect of someone whose reputation is founded on justifying the ways of the Beatles to men?
As Thomas Aquinas is reputed to have said to some atheist in a thirteenth-century wine bar in Orvieto, “Is that the best you’ve got, fella?”
‘Dubious accolade’. agreed, but Pharaoh Akhenaton, born Amenhotep, is clearly an earlier monotheist than Zoroaster.
“I would love to hear how you are certain about that. Did some old man with a long beard and flowing robes tap you on the shoulder one day, identify himself as God and give you the message personally? Did you maybe buy a bible in a book store only to notice later that it was signed by the author? Were you riding a horse during a thunderstorm and get struck by lighting, only to find when regaining consciousness that you had a new holy mission in life?
Let me guess. You are going to tell me that you arrived at your conclusion in some intuitive manner. Or perhaps you are going to tell me that you simply have a deep conviction that it’s true. Or somehow you just “know” it’s true.
Let me give you a little bit of truth from Mark Twain. “It’s easier to fool people that it is to persuade them that they have been fooled.” No truer words have ever been spoken.”
Laugh, snort and laugh. And I have no sense of humor — sadly.
Responses:
1. none of the old men i know wear beards or robes
2. Personal relationship is the best I can describe it.
3. The writing of Christ is best experienced in a one on one exchange with him — though in that book there are some vey neat references to said experience. “Come let us reason together.”
4. I have to confess to a a mission and its very difficult more times than not. “To love the Lord with my heart mind and being, the second is like that, do unto others and you would have them do unto you.” Would that I could bring you Christ, but that is a matter of choice – yours to as one will.
5. Whatever my equine experience, not permitted to ride during thunderstorms.
6. Unfortunately for me, there was no crisis, no addiction, no relational torn trauma, no life of chaos and mess — would that I could have those stories. Not much by way of intuition.
7. My conviction is very shallow and nothing is more testing and driving than my doubts.
8. There certainly have been and are charlatans among the faith and practice . . . and the book presses this admonition, “The heart is desperately wicked, easily deceived (self deception), who can tame it?” I think Mr. Mark Twain would agree.
I would that I had some deep spiritual experience. I have faced death twice and on both occasions, I did experience a deep sense of acceptance and peace. I walk lightly about them as Godly in nature prudence. Laugh.
How i would best describe faith and practice is the acceptance — a constant and persistent reconciliation, that in the space of every doubt I have — the possibility of the almighty reigns.
——————
And to be clear, this is not a bid to debate the existence of God. No point in that. No you will have to wrestle with your unknowns. But I remain as I came in — would that you have that experience one on one.
If water level is level, when and how can it become a sphere?
“If water level is level, when and how can it become a sphere?”
In a spherical geometry, “level” means equidistant from the sphere’s center. Consider a plane, tangent to a sphere at some arbitrary point on the sphere’s center. That plane is perpendicular to the radius of the sphere at that point. For points “sufficiently close” to the point of tangency, the tangent plane is an approximation to the spherical surface the smaller the distance on that spherical surface to that point, and the larger the radius of the sphere, the better the approximation. In the case of the earth, the radius is about 4000 miles, and the “local” area of interest on the surface is limited to the (maybe) few-miles’ distance that an observer can see. In such a local area, the earth’s surface can usefully be treated as flat.
Always happy to help!
Reactionary Utopian,
I like your website and your response to “repugnant”. I was going to answer him by going “full sulu” with some choice sarcasm and ad hominem attacks. What you did was infinitely better. Thank you for your respectful response to repugnant’s question and your good example to all Unz commenters.
The earth is flat everywhere. The whole of the Atlantic ocean from Cardiff Wales to the shoreline of North America is flat. from the islands of the Philippines to the shoreline of California, the Pacific Ocean is flat. Everywhere, by visual recognition, the earth is flat. The “North Pole” is the center of the earth, the “South Pole” is the edge of the earth. The sun, moon, and stars circle the flat plane of the earth. The earth is fixed and does not move. “Equidistant” does not prove spherical. Equal distance between two points is just that, equal distance. If anything the greater the distance between two points on a sphere would show unequivocally a height difference at each point from center. This does not happen because the earth is flat. A tool used as a level being the length of 12 inches compared to a tool used as a level of a 1/4 mile will show the exact same results from point to point because it’s sitting on a level surface. The earth is flat.
You post mentions the word faith. Let me give you a little more Twain.
“Faith is when you believe in something you know isn’t true.”
Sulu
OK, I get that arguments about the Flat Earth generally congeal down to issues around religious dogma, but I’m finding it a real stretch to make the connection between the author’s subject and this…
Are we dealing here with someone who has a bug up their butt about Muslims?
The detour into an unrelated area with no shred of any connection to the parent article appears to be completely spontaneous, without even any prior discussion to act as a trigger.
Just saying.
To disprove something implies there was prior proof. Can you produce such proof?
Truth is, none of this really matters unless we want a narrative to cling to.
An awful lot of the history that we have been taught has been falsified, and the scientific “elite” are most emphatically not immune to human nature when it comes to indoctrination, government grants and acceptance by the establishment and so forth. Look what they put Galileo through for for daring to challenge the contemporary dogma.
FWIW, one particular Catholic mystic (a Saint, no less) stated that eventually men will land on Mars and discover absolute irrefutable proof that Jesus created the Universe.
Don’t ask me what that proof could possibly be, but the point is that mystic just told it like she saw it, with no particular misgivings about whether or not the Earth is flat.
Beating people around the head with a Bible – no matter the reason – is akin to trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. The Bible was never meant to be a propaganda piece. Anyone who wants to tear it to pieces – again, no matter the reason – is basically just pissing into the wind.
Best to keep an open mind and avoid jumping to conclusions (unlike that Professor Sterling Harwood in the parent article, who from a reading of the article strikes me as someone irretrievably trapped inside his own conclusion, seated upon the pedestal of his enormous ego and oblivious to passers-by as he goes about his day with his head firmly implanted up his own butt).
And what is your religion? Please don’t tell me that you have none.
Religion is a system of belief, nothing more. It is a description, codification, and/or practice of what one believes to be true. As such, everyone has a religion, even those who try to deny this. It may be a belief in a super-natural being, democracy, that pigs really can fly, that those who die with the most toys win, science, education, logic, Communism, etc. Everyone believes in something, they live their lives according to that belief, and they reflect and project that belief onto their own personal world, no matter how large, small, or flat it is. That belief is their religion.
Does God exist? Does God not exist? Logic cannot answer either question. Neither can science. It is impossible to prove one or the other and it is futile to attempt to do so. It is just as difficult for you to prove that God does not exist as it is for me to prove that He does. All we can know is what we believe to be true. Working this knowledge and belief out in our own lives is our religion. I have my own. So do you, as does every single person who lives now, has lived in the past, or will live in the future.
If you claim that God doesn’t exist and I claim He does, it isn’t up to me to prove that He does. It is up to you to prove that He doesn’t. Why? This is a silly statement, as is yours. If we believe something is true, then it is our responsibility to back that belief up. Saying that you don’t have to support your claim, but others do is a hypocritical evasion and an implicit admission that you really don’t have an argument. Remember, the burden of proof ALWAYS rests on the person making the claim.
If my contention that you have a religion is true, then you are saying that your religion is a con based on lies. There are only three possible responses to this charge: deny, do nothing, change.
1. Deny that what I have said is true, in which case you have to prove that it is untrue. Go ahead. Convince me that I am wrong. Give it your best shot.
2. Continue on the way you are without proving anything, in which case you will be seen as “all hat, no cattle”, with no good argument except to point to yourself and your accomplishments as proof that you have no good argument. This will be the easiest way out, since you have already said that you don’t have to back up your claim that God doesn’t exist.
3. Admit that you are wrong and change the way you think. There is nothing wrong in admitting that you have been wrong.
This could just as easily be said about politics and government. In fact, belief in the State system is a religion, which many, perhaps even yourself, subscribe to. Taxes are equivalent to the tithe, except that the percentage demanded by the State is much greater than that demanded by God or the church.
I have no formal education beyond high school which I left at 16, halfway through my junior year. Never went to college or pursued a degree. I don’t have any initials behind my name. However, I learned to read while sitting on my mother’s lap, have always questioned and argued, and have never been afraid to explore opposing viewpoints or to discard anything I found to be insufficient. I have spent 60+ years learning, from experience, how to employ logic and reason, which I can say is far more valuable than any amount of “formal” education. There are a lot of educated idiots out there, many of whom couldn’t carry a logical argument in a bag if it was handed to them.
Oh, BTW, I can admit that I need to change when it becomes evident to me that I am wrong. I am not perfect. Can you say the same thing or are you so immersed and entrenched in your religion that you are unable to see its flaws or to even admit that there might be some?
“Faith is when you believe in something you know isn’t true.”
To know Mr Mark Twain is to love him. His comment is not at all about the existence of God, but rather the peculiar web about God created by religion. The above quotation has nothing to do with God’s existence. Even Mr Twain believed that there is a God.
I think you are leaning on the wrong fence post. The mechanisms of religion are npt be definition equivalent to faith.
I do wish you had put that at the beginning of your rant. It would have saved me a bit of time reading the rest of your post. Your post is so full of gibberish and illogic it is difficult to know where to begin.
That is possibly the most asinine statement in your entire rant. How could you possibly know the value of formal education if you have none? I am the one here that is in a position to know whether or not that statement is true because I have both 60 years of learning and a formal education. And I can state unequivocally that you are wrong. They are both important.
I have met many people in my life that try and maintain that a formal education is worth little. And without exception they all have one thing in common. They are all uneducated. So it’s “sour grapes.” You don’t have it and so it must not be important.
In short you are uneducated and have your ass chapped because of your lack and because in one of my earlier posts I mentioned that religion often snares the uneducated. You are a walking, talking advertisement for the veracity of my claim.
Sulu
Microbial life is nothing. What will be a major discovery is if we find eukaryotic life forms (those whose cells have mitochondria and walled nuclei). There has been some speculation among scientists that the symbiosis that created eukaryotic life on earth was a one-in-a-million shot. And it is the energy-producing mitochondria that allow eukaryotes to form complex multicellular organisms. So about 99.9999% of life-bearing planets out there in the universe are likely to consist solely of bacteria or other prokaryotes.
“Your post is so full of gibberish and illogic it is difficult to know where to begin.”
So you began by attacking my lack of “education” instead of addressing the points I brought up? Wouldn’t it be of more value to “educate” me on the gibberish and illogic which apparently suffuses my post? Hey, after all, if you win your case, you might gain a disciple. It should be easy for you. You’ve been taught. I haven’t.
Slam dunk! Right?
That statement is diametrically opposed to the Scientific Method, which proposes that any hypothesis and then theory should be tested in order to find fault, and not the other way around.
Even Einstein himself is reputed to have said “All the experiments in the world will not suffice to prove a single theory, but just one experiment can disprove any of them”.
It’s what I heard, anyway.
Actually I did refute some of your bullshit. And you simply ignored it…pretended it wasn’t even there. Why don’t you re-read my reply and perhaps you will see it this time. Ignoring a refutation in no way helps you to win an argument. It just makes you appear to be a dullard.
You have had 60 years in which to “educate” yourself and and apparently not only have you not accomplished it you don’t even understand the importance of doing so. And you obviously resent anyone that does have an education. Due, no doubt, to your own lack. Acquiring a formal education take years of hard work. I hardly think I can enlighten you with only a few paragraphs. Nor can I see any reason to be bothered to attempt it since you couldn’t be bothered yourself.
Why don’t you just pretend that you didn’t see my earlier post where I listed the fact that I have two college degrees and a pilot’s license? (Actually I have more than that) That way you will feel a bit better about yourself and I won’t have to endure, “A tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
P.S. That last quote was from Shakespeare, in case you didn’t know. Well, actually, it’s not a quote but a paraphrase. That is about as far as I am willing to go to “educate” you.
Sulu
correction:
I think you are leaning on the wrong fence post(Mr. Mark Twain). Even Mr. Twain believed that there is a God.
The mechanisms of religion are not be definition equivalent to faith. And even the old book critiques “religiosity”.
My hope for you and a host of others is that personal experience.
The sentence you highlighted has nothing to do with the scientific method. It stands on its own as a statement of logic which most people have no ability in. It’s a function of simple language and nothing more. To disprove something implies a prior proof; this should be obvious, but of course, isn’t to those that want to use semantics and sophistry to try to make their case.
The English words “prove” and “disprove” are related in their meaning. Einstein’s statement used a foible of language when he made it. Einstein never proved anything. He came up with theories and being proud of them considered them facts which they are not, not to this very day.
If I tell you that I’ve seen elephants fly by flapping their ears, I’m fairly certain you would ask for proof of that absurd notion. Making the statement is in essence postulating a theory from your perspective but from mine, I might consider it a fact. In the sciences, many theories are considered probably true till some test says otherwise. Some theories are true under certain conditions but false otherwise. Actual proof is almost never available so to disprove a theory amounts to finding where it doesn’t apply.
Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt.
H. L. Mencken
Yes it does.
BS.
The implication is in your head, and nowhere else.
“Hey, there’s a cow on the roof!”
Where’s the “prior proof”? An allegation is just that – an empty assertion devoid of substance until put to the test by someone who cares enough to actually investigate. Some like to say that “thoughts are things”, but they need an attentive host to substantiate their existence – if a tree falls in the forest but there is no-one there to witness it, does it actually make a sound?
Exactly. Mr. Einstein himself confirmed this, as a necessary consequence of the Scientific Method.
1. Who judged the notion to be absurd? And who said it was James Bond’s first time?
2. That is not a theory or even a hypothesis – it is an empirical observation for which confirmation through repeated observation would likely be sought by anyone who cared to do so. Meanwhile, the particulars of how your elephants accomplished their feat might become the subject of hypotheses and theories, which would then necessarily be subject to interrogation by the Scientific Method.
I rest my case.
To conflate science with a discussion about religion is inappropriate. The language used in one context takes on a different meaning when used in the other.
Thankfully, you have rested your pitiful case based upon sophistry and misdirection. Good choice.
So would you tell me again what your “religion” is. I must have missed it the first time. Probably written in such erudite language that it went right by me.
Mr. Barrett, rather than advising comparative religion classes, try scientific investigations into mind/consciousness, as parapsychology abundantly attests to the reality of phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokenesis (PK), etc., which are a part of religious experience and a puzzle for materialists and dogmatic religionists alike. Are not yogis, mystics, shamans, and psychics such as Edgar Cayce valid investigators of mind/consciousness?
A book you might like is Alchemy, Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul, by Titus Burckhardt, a Sufi who also used an Islamic name. True alchemy pursued the inner refining of the baser matters of lower conciousness into finer matters of higher consciousness. Burckhardt traces the common symbology of alchemy, astrology, and Tarot as they relate to matter and consciousness.
P. D. Ouspensky’s In Search of the Miraculous and The Fourth Way describe G.I. Gurdjieff’s Sufi/Christian mystic based knowledge and methods to raise consciousness by transformation of matters. Explanation is made of how and why religion (as well as all human endeavors) will transform from, say, pursuits of truth and peace into practices of delusion and destruction.
Investigations of so-called near death experiences (NDEs) also challenge dogmatisms. Some years ago I read neurosurgeon Eban Alexander’s Proof of Heaven. He dismantles the dubious theory that his experiences resulted from a process of neural degeneration. He continues to write and appear publicly. I haven’t read a lot of the NDE genre, but a brief internet inquiry showed quite a bit of research, such as by Bruce Grayson (if I recall his name accurately) and his associates at the University of Virginia. It appears many NDE researchers are physicians, inspired by their own experience or those of their patients.
I espoused materialism/atheism at age eleven, after reading African Genesis and The Territorial Imperative (I forget the author’s name) and On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz. I spent many hours reading my father’s Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. A few years later I ran across J.B. Rhine’s New Frontier of the Mind and stuff on parapsychology and changed my thinking. I read Darwin’s works and noticed his honesty when he mentioned how something such as a lack of intermediate forms of an organism would prove fatal to his theory.
Darwin said that his notions of natural selection in the transformation of species into higher forms would require refutation before his theory could be discarded. I’d say Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution and Darwin Devolves do a good job of that.
I don’t think arguments of God vs. No God between dogmatists do much good. With my own fallibilities in mind, I become more as a betting man, and I place my bet on the general cosmology as derived from the Cayce transcripts–that the creation of man took place in the spiritual, that some of these beings wished to “feel the breeze and smell the flowers” and became entrapped in matter, that various attempts to help them escape their predicament, such as that recorded in “the fall of the angels” have occurred, that once in the karmic web we incarnate again and again until we develop the states of conciousness and being that, with help from on high, allow us to get the heck out of here.
The reason you missed it is because you apparently can’t read any better than you can write. It’s posted here on this very thread.
Sulu
I have reviewed all of your comments and can find nothing from you except that you denigrate, dismiss, and slam other people who have beliefs which you find objectionable or different than your own. Is that correct or not? If it is, did you learn this behavior from your stints in “higher education”?
You state that I missed it and it is possible that I did, therefore, please direct me to the comment above which details and explains your religion. If it is indeed posted on this very thread, it should be easy for a “highly educated” person such as yourself to point it out.
Post 21 on this very thread. I do hope me giving you the number 21 helps. Of course I’m assuming you didn’t leave high school so early that you don’t know your numbers.
Your envy due to my education and your insecurity due to your lack just drips off every post you make. It’s not my fault you are uneducated and so brutally stupid that you can’t understand the benefit of it. If you want to know who to be angry with about it just look in the mirror.
Sulu
Zounds! What an impressive exposition of your religious beliefs! The depths of your fervent expression simply stagger the mind. You stand head and shoulders above everyone else in the eloquence of defending the tenets of your faith, although, C.S. Lewis, the Apostle Paul, and St. Gregory Nanzianzus might come somewhat near to your model of perfection, albeit from a different perspective.
Why is your “religion”, which tears people down and only creates conflict, superior in any way to one which seeks to build them up in a positive manner through the individual confession of imperfection, which is embedded deeply within the soul of every human being, including yours? Do you “piss” on other people’s beliefs because you are afraid to face your own flaws and correct them, admitting the possibility that you might be wrong? Are you so sure of yourself that there is no room for contemplation about your own fallibility? Does the faith of other people remind you that there are questions which cannot be answered, even though philosophers, scientists, clerics, and “educated idiots” have pondered these for millennia?
I will admit to a mistake made earlier, which you mentioned. I cannot know the benefits of formal education and compare those to an education gained by experience. This is true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that my observation is wrong. I will not make that claim again.
What the heck does obtaining a pilot’s license have to do with forming one’s religious beliefs? Big deal. Millions of people have them and they are not all as antagonistic as you. Ditto with professional certificates, a few of which I also hold. And if obtaining college degrees is so important, the penultimate pinnacle of achievement, then you really ought to be reaching beyond a B.S in geology and a B.A. in philosophy. That ought to cement your convictions forever, especially if you hold firm until you die, at which point there is no possibility of change for the better.
Hilarious statement coming from a high school dropout.
Actually, with the encouragement of my favorite Geology Professor, I was considering going after my PhD. But I wanted to give myself a little vacation first as reward for graduating, and I had the money, so I hopped on a plane and ended up in the Philippines. There I discovered Asian pussy and scuba diving. It ended up being a fateful trip. I eventually built a house over there and did a number of scuba dives in the mighty Pacific. I got into tech diving and actually did some mixed gas dives, one of which was to 300ft. That one felt like what I imagine it might feel like to walk on the moon. It literally took years of diving to acquire the necessary skills to even attempt it.
I’ve seen whale sharks as big as a bus come up out of the depths to take a look at me. Then watched them head back down into the abyss. I’ve drifted down through a school of great barracuda that stretched out in both directions as far as the eye could see. I have been diving in poor visibility and met a thresher shark heads up and had him do a 90 degree turn into the gloom. Then I’m wondering where he is now. I have been through swarms of millions of small fish and when you go through them they swim around you just inches out of your reach. They form an almost perfect ball around you and it looks like you are inside a living snowstorm.
Night dives were a special kind of fun. I’ve seen moray eel’s take their prey while on a night dive where my light paints the reef in rainbow colors you don’t see in the daytime. And when the sea is still you can look up and see the moon reflected on the surface of the sea overhead gently swaying with the motion of the water. There are tiny bioluminescent creatures in the ocean and you can turn your light off and wave your hand in the sea and it looks like stars coming off your fingers. When we get back to the boat it’s tradition for everyone to share rum out of the same bottle. I remember taking a swig of rum and watching the bioluminescent wake coming off the boat when I would look down at the sea. And when I would look up at the sky the milky way was overhead with what seemed like about a million stars. Since the time difference between the Philippines and the East coast of America is about 12 hours I remember thinking that America is waking up about now and millions of saps are going to a job they hate to pay for a mortgage they can’t afford to try and make a fat wife happy that’s going to divorce them in a few years anyway and take their house. But not me.
And the women. Did I mention the women? I used to frequently take them 2 at a time. Occasionally 3 at a time. I would just put their cute butts up in the air and go down the line. And the lucky girl, or unlucky as the case may be, would catch the load. I never took over 3 at a time because I considered that excessive. I thought I knew what pussy was. After all I went to college. But if you have never been to S.E.A. you have no idea. You can have as many girls as you want, every day. In fact after the first few months I found I had to skip having sex for a day or two because I couldn’t cum. Imagine that. Having to lay off sex for a few days so you could cum because you as getting so much!
I decided to forgo my PhD and ended up staying in country about 20 years. I got about 600 scuba dives and had more than that number of women. The only reason I didn’t have more women was that occasionally I would find some young hottie that I liked and would have her come live with me. That really didn’t cut down on the sex but it did cut down on the variety.
The last girl I lived with I met when I was 49 and she was 18. She was stunning and we did a barnyard dance around each other for several months before I got her in bed. Which was unusual. But she was a 9 and she knew it so I was willing to jump through a few hoops. We ended up being together for almost 3 years. I remember the night before she turned 20 I was shagging her harder than usual and she commented on it and asked why. I told her after tonight she is 20 so no more teenage pussy for me. That got me a laugh. If you saw a picture of her you would be floored. But it probably wouldn’t help your confidence one bit. She could have been on the cover of any teen magazine here in America. And she was mine. For a while, at least.
One of my favorite movies is Blade Runner. In it a character has the line, “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” In my case it’s literally true.
For your sake I hope you have had a life filled with half the travel, adventure and pussy that I have. But my guess is you haven’t. I bet you are conventual. Probably been divorced at least once and had your ass ripped wide open financially because you got married too early before you figured out it was a con. And even if you are one of those mythical unicorns that married his childhood sweet heart 40 years ago and is still married all that means is you probably get to wake up next to a whale every morning. But not me.
I didn’t even mention all the countries I have been to, my time in Hong Kong and Bangkok or how I got my pilot’s license. Or how I drove the Alcan and camped out in Alaska with my dog, a Chihuahua, one summer. I also didn’t mention my time in Hawaii. Or that fact that I have been to most of the States except those in the North East. But that’s ok. I’m sure you get the idea.
Tell the fat wife I said hello.
Sulu
That’s the first damn thing you have said that give me any respect for you at all. I assume you are alluding to the fact that the burden of proof always rest on the person making the assertion. Or, as I said before, if you maintain that God exists and I maintain he doesn’t it isn’t up to me to prove he doesn’t it’s up to you to prove he does. That was a principal taught to me in logic class and one I have yet to forget. And the truth of the matter is there is not one shred of definitive proof that God does in fact exist. Now, having said that I will admit that lack of proof is not proof of lack. But, it is a pretty good indication.
Now, there are hints, hints mind you that Gad may exist. One is the so called anthropic principal. It is a subject that is suitable to fill many text books but if I may greatly simplify, it comes down to the fact that the fundamental particles and forces of the Universe are at just the right numerical value to allow life to exist. If gravity had been just a bit stronger stars would burn out in millions of years not billions thereby not allowing life time to evolve. If it was a bit weaker stars would never ignite and there wouldn’t be the energy necessary to power the mechanism of life. If the strong nuclear force was a tiny bit stronger or weaker there couldn’t be chemical reactions that would allow life to exist. So it seems that the Universe might have been designed so life can inhabit it. Some educated physicists see this as a possible proof for the existence of God. But, they are in the minority. Most other physicist think that we don’t live in a Universe but a Multiverse with an uncounted number of Universes. Something like 10 to the 500th power Universes. Most of them probably don’t have the right numerical values on the forces and particles to allow life. And we are pondering the fact simply because this is one of the few or perhaps the only to support life.
Even though I have had physics in college because I was a science major I am not a Physicist. This subject is much more suitable for discussion among people with PhD’s in the subject. In other words it is over my head since I can’t do all the complicated and rather esoteric math required in order to research the subject. So I simply have to rely on the majority opinion among physicist that the anthropic principal is not proof of God.
Sulu
No, I was referring to your statement that, because I had not received any formal training beyond my stint in high school, I was not qualified to make a comparison between education through experience alone and that learned in a college classroom. It has nothing to do with burden of proof which you have assumed. In fact, you did not have to assume anything since I described it above. (Comment #43) You make a lot of assumptions about things which you know nothing. You really should learn to assume nothing.
In this thread, I have never made the claim that God exists. Not once. Therefore, I do not need to prove anything about that issue. Or, as I stated earlier (also Comment #43),
Therefore, since you are the one making the claim that God does NOT exist, the burden of proof lies on you to back up your assertion.
There is not one shred of definitive proof that God does NOT exist. Can you produce even one? Do you have any evidence at all that God does NOT exist? If you do, put it out into the open. If you don’t, then you ought to quit being so strident and dogmatic about trying to force others to make their case and admit that you can’t even defend your own.
This is such an unhinged rant that it is not worthy of any comment other than this.
Go ask any lawyer if you can prove a negative. Go ask any logic Professor if you can prove a negative. Hell, go ask any college Professor if it is possible to prove a negative.
That one post alone proves you are a stupid, stubborn, ignorant, uneducated fool. I’m done wasting my time on you.
Sulu
A rant? No, it was a thumbnail autobiography prompted by your suggestion that I shouldn’t have stopped my formal education at two Bachelor degrees. I wanted you to know why I did. I also wanted to demonstrate to you that I sidestepped most the the traps that the World sets for the fools.
I never got married, therefor I never got financially raped in a divorce. I didn’t get roped into believing in God or organized religion, therefor I didn’t waste my time and resources on that bit of horseshit. I didn’t join the military and get my ass shot off in some war so the powerful people in the World can make another buck.
I told you that just to let you know that I almost certainly have had more travel, adventure and women that some uneducated moron such as yourself. Partly because I’m not stupid so I didn’t fall for a lot of the bullshit out there. Partially because I’m educated. And since you neglected to mention your marital status I would take an even money bet that you have been married at least once in your life and divorced. Go on, admit it. You have had your ass ripped at least once by divorce haven’t you? And your ex wife made out like a bandit. She got the house and kids and you got to pay for it all. If you are really stupid you have been divorced more than once. But not me. Ha Ha.
Sulu
Because you cannot prove a negative, it cannot be shown that God does not exist. Therefore, it is quite possible that God does, in fact, exist.
If that is true, then those people who believe in God might also be right and, if they are right, you are wrong. Are you 100% sure of your position or is there even just a niggling doubt about it? Is that uncertainty the reason you so vehemently attack others with venom, vitriol, and viciousness? There really is no way to attack God directly, so you do it indirectly, waging war against His followers and disciples.
What if you are wrong? At your age, death is going to come within a few short years and when that happens, there will be no opportunity to change your mind.
Selah. Pause. Consider.
You may be done with me, but I am going to dog your heels. Whenever I see anything at all on any post anywhere which has your name on it and which follows your pattern here, I am going to respond to it. The only way you can avoid this is to either amend the comments you post or do not post at all. You will not know when or where my response to you pops up, but you can be assured that when/if it does, it will also follow the pattern I have used here.
You have been warned.
This is such an unhinged rant that it is not worthy of any comment other than this.
That’s why you’re angry. Because I’m right about your divorce. Do you know why you got financially fucked in that divorce that you won’t admit to? I can tell you. Because you are stupid. You made it easy for them. You put your cock right in the soft beartrap. You got married and thought everything was going to be great. But the beartrap had teeth, didn’t it? In no time at all your wife got a lawyer, bent you over, and rammed it right up your ass dry. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are still paying for it. And why are you so pissed? Because, statistically, it’s almost certain to be true. And because I asked you straight up and you won’t admit to it means it’s true and you know it bolsters my case that you are an imbecile. I hope you enjoyed standing before some POS judge and saying, “Yes, your honor.” and “No, your honor.” while they carved you up like a Christmas turkey. Ha ha
While you were getting your bank account raided by your fat ex and her lawyer I was on the other side of the World banging the finest 18 to 23 year old pussy that an entire country had to offer. And none of them ever got a dime off me that I didn’t authorize. And you know what? I will take my life choices over yours any day you pathetic excuse for a man. Do you still have a pair of balls or did your ex’s lawyer get them too? Ha Ha Looser.
Sulu
FYI, I have only been married one time and am still married to the same woman–for more than 27 years. Just another example of an assumption made on a subject you know nothing about and in which you are completely wrong. Anything else?
Assume nothing. This should have been the first thing you learned in Philosophy 101. Apparently your “education” has taught you nothing.
And you know I take that as “gospel.” And even if it is true you still have the “Sword of Damocles.” hanging over your head. Funny that you should tell me not to assume something I know nothing about when you are assuming you know something about God.
It’s also obvious that you don’t read my posts carefully. In post 61 I told you that some Physicist think they can see evidence for the existence of God due to the fact that the numerical values of the forces and particles that make up the Universe appear to have values that are fined tuned for life. Even though most Physicist don’t see it as incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God it does hint at it. But you either didn’t read it or more likely didn’t understand it. Here I will post it again.
I was trying to be fair and balanced. But I guess it was simply over your head.
Sulu
Oh, I saw it all right and I thought about saying that it was the first damn thing you said which might cause me to have some respect for you. Want to know why? Because it was the first post you have written on this thread in which you were actually saying something intelligent instead of simply trying to rip someone to shreds. If you were to write like that more often, we might get a “decent” conversation going.
Am I assuming that I know something (anything) about God? I ask you. Please point out the comment which proves your assertion. All I have said in this thread is that it cannot be proven that God does or does not exist. God cannot be proven one way or the other. This is not an assumption.
I thought you were done wasting your time on me. Why? Actually, I have been enjoying our dialogue and would prefer that you did not quit. So bring it on. Hit me with your best shot. I can handle it.