Cuter Than Palin

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, that is because people don't want objects dropped on their head, or the ladder to collapse on them.

No! Though who knows maybe that's where the superstition around these things came from.

I just doubt anybody really believed that a black cat was going to cause them bad luck.

[The Stranger]

doesnt matter horetore makes his truth and his contemporary truth into a universal and eternal truth. bad bad horetore... he cant stake the claims he makes. perhaps in 400 years the people will be laughing that we ever thought that it was true that angels didnt exist or that it was true that we cause global warming etc etc

[HoreTore]

doesnt matter horetore makes his truth and his contemporary truth into a universal and eternal truth. bad bad horetore... he cant stake the claims he makes. perhaps in 400 years the people will be laughing that we ever thought that it was true that angels didnt exist or that it was true that we cause global warming etc etc

Yes, because the people who believe in angels aren't making up their own truth.....................yes..............

But I guess logic goes out the window for some people when they reflect upon their faith... If they reflect upon it at all, that is.

EDIT: If someone said to you that Sauron was real and that his best friend was Gandalf, whom he talked to every day.... What would you call that?

[The Stranger]

nuts. XD

im not at all a believer btw i dunno if your second comment was aimed at me. and my logic is quite sharp. check the multiculti thread, i have the same debate with sasaki.

[HoreTore]

nuts. XD

....and how is it any different from believing in angels...?

im not at all a believer btw i dunno if your second comment was aimed at me. and my logic is quite sharp. check the multiculti thread, i have the same debate with sasaki.

The second comment was aimed at everyone who believes in angels and other fantasy creatures.

[The Stranger]

i was being sarcistic about my nuts.

but i think you overlook an area of truth and fulfillment and that you make scientific claims in areas where science has no jurisdiction.

you claim that angels do not exist but you cannot be sure about it. you cannot prove it scientifially. neither can they prove scientifically that they do exist. so you have to beat them at their own turf, locate the inconsistensies etc instead of just saying you are crazy because you believe in god and angels which is not an argument.

edit

i would tell the dude that that would be highly unlikely because if sauron and gandalf were real and they were like the book of tolkien describes than they would not be friends but enemies.

see, lokate inconsistency, aim and destroy!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe in angels, though I have never spoken to one (nor do I expect to do so).

Does she really hear angels talking? Unlikely, I think -- but I am not she. Yet it is far more comforting to hear someone believe in angels than in voices that urge destruction. Assisi seems truer to the spirit of things than does Arnaud-Amaury, at least to me.

[HoreTore]

i was being sarcistic about my nuts.

but i think you overlook an area of truth and fulfillment and that you make scientific claims in areas where science has no jurisdiction.

you claim that angels do not exist but you cannot be sure about it. you cannot prove it scientifially. neither can they prove scientifically that they do exist. so you have to beat them at their own turf, locate the inconsistensies etc instead of just saying you are crazy because you believe in god and angels which is not an argument.

edit

i would tell the dude that that would be highly unlikely because if sauron and gandalf were real and they were like the book of tolkien describes than they would not be friends but enemies.

see, lokate inconsistency, aim and destroy!

I never said he believed Sauron was his friend, did I?

And yes, i do attack the inconsistencies, why on earth would you think I don't? That was why I talked about logic, ya know. Some people just can't grasp that extremely low odds still means that something will happen from time to time. For example, if you think about someone, and unknown to you they fly above you that very instant, that is still a coincidence, it does not show that you have some otherworldly connection with that person. It was nothing but a coincidence.

But still, the burden of proof rests on the one who makes a claim, not the one who does not believe it.

I believe in angels, though I have never spoken to one (nor do I expect to do so).

Does she really hear angels talking? Unlikely, I think -- but I am not she. Yet it is far more comforting to hear someone believe in angels than in voices that urge destruction. Assisi seems truer to the spirit of things than does Arnaud-Amaury, at least to me.

She has started a school where you can learn to talk to angels, from which she is making plenty of cash. Which makes her a con artist, and no, that's not very comforting.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... She has started a school where you can learn to talk to angels, from which she is making plenty of cash. Which makes her a con artist, and no, that's not very comforting.

I attend such a school most Sundays, though we do tend to teach that the responses will be more "indirect" than this woman's school likely teaches. Still, such teachings seem far less harmful to me than does the average Al Queda camp curriculum.

[The Stranger]

I never said he believed Sauron was his friend, did I?

And yes, i do attack the inconsistencies, why on earth would you think I don't? That was why I talked about logic, ya know. Some people just can't grasp that extremely low odds still means that something will happen from time to time. For example, if you think about someone, and unknown to you they fly above you that very instant, that is still a coincidence, it does not show that you have some otherworldly connection with that person. It was nothing but a coincidence.

But still, the burden of proof rests on the one who makes a claim, not the one who does not believe it.

cmon horetore you can do better than this.

1) lets assume that the burden of proof lays with the one that makes the claim this doesnt mean that the one who doesnt believe in it has no obligation to back his statements up with arguments. all i have seen you do so far is this: i dont believe in angels so everyone who does believe in angels is nuts. this is just dogmatic.

2) you also make a claim, many, but lets take this claim: For example, if you think about someone, and unknown to you they fly above you that very instant, that is still a coincidence, it does not show that you have some otherworldly connection with that person. It was nothing but a coincidence.

how can you be so certain that this is a coincidence. im not saying that it is not. and indeed it doesnt show that you have a otherworldly connection with that person, but it doesnt rule it out either. neither does it show that it was coincidence and at the same time it doesnt rule it out either.

again you just dismiss their case in favor of yours without showing why their arguments are flawed.

She has started a school where you can learn to talk to angels, from which she is making plenty of cash. Which makes her a con artist, and no, that's not very comforting.

it would make her a con artist if what she tries is either impossible or she is being a fraud. have you attended one of these classes (with an open mind) and tried to see for yourself?

[gaelic cowboy]

No! Though who knows maybe that's where the superstition around these things came from.

I just doubt anybody really believed that a black cat was going to cause them bad luck.

The ladder one is about not breaking a "Trinity" made from the ground the wall and the ladder.