Quag

MEETS if 1 than B is first as BEETS =2

CROWED

BEETS

Simple answer is no ghosts are not human. I believe you would like to ask the question: Were ghosts once human? Fist you have to deal with the question of do ghosts exist? I think this would be a better topic of discussion. However if we accept that they do exist, then traditional explanation of them says that mostly they once were. There is also stories of ghosts being pets or other animals.

WOW this is the best discussion in this christianit thread and its between 2 non christians Ok i was gonna go through this line by line but well im tired and was messing up the quotes, but while looking things up I came across a better definiton of what I belive Pragmatic agnosticism The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic. Yup gotta say that sums up my beliefs the best so far. Although I believe the question is academic I find it very interesting none the less. Personal opinion is that we can be as sure of jesus existence as most anyone elses back then. Sure there is more proof that Julius Ceaser lived but he led Rome and also wrote a lot himslef. The way I look at it is the bible is like most historical fiction. The general lines of what happened are correct, it is the details that do not exactly reflect what happened. things like to supposed miracles etc. Also all the statements while possible reflecting what he meant to say, cannot be 100% accurate, lets face it they were written after his death and not by him (mind you if he managed to write them himself after his death that would be a miracle). forgive me im tired and need sleep

Ill do it pick a book by tomorrow if you can as im gonna be sitting on a beach in cuba after that, it would be a good time to read

yup tic tac toe can only be won if the opponent makes a mistake. as for chess ask the programmers of big blue what they think

The only people I could find who refute the existence of jesus seem to be fanatical atheists. sorry if I dont lend any credence to fanatics.

Nope i understand it completely seems you just dont or wont accept the definitions. I accept this part of your statement. again true ok again just proving my point. It is a simple way of stating my position I admit. let me clarify. If there is a god I do not believe that you have to believe in him/her/it/them whatever to go to heaven/nirvanah or whatever. If there is no god believing or not believing will not affect the outcome of an afterlife or lack thereof. I also do not believe morals come from religion. They often teach morals but are not the gatekeepers of them. That is what I meant by saying gods existence or non existence is irrelevant. The belief or non belief in gods existence obvioulsy has a profound effect on our world. no atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. I disagree. here is mine. 1 do you believe god exists? if yes then you are a theist if no than goto 2 2 do you believe god does not exist if yes you are an atheist if not goto3 3. Do believe god may or may not exist if yes you are an agnostic. if no go back to question 1 repeat untill you say yes somewhere. Now i admit an agnostic can tend towards atheism or theism or a theist or an atheist can tend towads agnosticism but the tend doesnt make you join the other camp. think spectum of a rainbow the exact point at which red turns orange is fuzzy and hard to define but if your in the middle of the red ther eis no doubt.

peace*out please not I am disagreeing with a NON CHRISTAIN I refute this compeltely. I disbelive in the non existence of god. Does that make me an agnostic-athiest-thiest? of course not. Athiest: believes god does not exist. Thiest: believes in some sort of god. Agnostic: admits they dont know.. yes definitions change over time but so far the definition of atheism and agnostic have not changed. Agnoticiic was a term created by Thomas Henry Huxley who was as much against atheism as he was theism. The definition may change ovver time but so far it hasnt changed even if you want it to. Did you know the wiccan religion started in the 20th century? yup the term witch is older than the wiccan religion. and that many wiccans take offence at the term witch? Ok you dont accept the generally accepted terms used in the english language. you sir a a maverick seriously it doesnt matter if you dont like the definition af atheism or theism or agnosticism they are what they are you can try to change it but the effort does not make it so. In fact the chances of changing the definiton are as likely as the definition of iron changing.

Points 1+2 combined. Peace*out: Hubris means arrogance. Please reread my post. I say it is arrogoant to claim to KNOW not to believe BELIEVE the two are not the same thing. You claim to believe and have faith, that is not arrogance it is belief. If you start to claim you KNOW and have PROOF, well then yes i am sorry you can say I am calling you arrogant because well frankly you are being arrogant. Seems all your points center around the confusion of the 2 words. I make a difference between belief/faith and knowledge. If you think I am attacking the religious people more than the athiests please point out the where someone has claimed to KNOW that god does not exist. The few times i have seen anything close to that on this board I have made comments, just they are far far fewer than the other way around. 3: what does that excerpt have to do with the world being a sphere? More importantly what does that have to do with proving god? The bible talks of jesus, he existed no debate on that one, but that doesnt mean he is the son of god. You believe that, that is fine but just because the bible says he existed and we know he did does not lead to the proof that he is divine. Heinrich Schliemann used the Iliad and the Odyssey to find Troy that does not mean that the greek gods are real either. Please note when I say it does not mean something exists it is also implicit that the reverse is true as well. Ie it does not mean that it doesnt exist. 4. dont understand your point sorry. 5. I never claimed to know all religions are bogus I said i tend to believe thay all are (not same thing as believing god doesnt exist) I have thought about it and that is my conclusion. You have obviously thought about it and came to a different conclusion. the definition of atheism was added for ADParker as he seems to think I'm an athiest, which isnt true. Ill finish by pointing that you brought up the word idiot not me. I only used Hubris in the case of people who claim to know (on either side of the debate if you would reread the post) not those who believe. If you take this as an insult well ther eis nothing I can do.

You misunderstand me I do not disbelieve in the existence of god(s) a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Either you disagree with this definition of atheism or you misunderstand my point of view. I do not dibelieve in god, I just dont know. That is Agnosticism. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve it is just my way of saying I dont know. What I believe is that the belief or disbelief in god is irrelevant. I do however Disbelieve in the christian view of god, that doesnt make me atheist just non christian. Though I must admit most christians confuse the two and are convinced that if you do not believe in their version of god you are an atheist, or at least the ones that I know. Ie. my in-laws.

I will agree to these rules but wish to add another stipulation. IF there is a dispute, The host has the final say but then afterword all may make their arguments and a new rule will be formed. If it contradicts or is in any way different than what the host decided, it will not afftect that game only those that come after. just trying to avoid any future animosity here

1.Claiming to KNOW either gods existence or non existence is the height of hubris. Point I was trying to make was thet it is rather arrogant to claim to KNOW something that is inherently unknowable. You can BELIEVE but not KNOW, seems people often confuse the two. The seeing a house and thus you know it was built by someone is an old arguement used by creationists. rather than go into it again i just dismissed it. sorry if i was cavalier didnt try and paint you as an idiot. but it is a falacious arguement. I am not trying to confuse I am actually trying to enlighten. There is no proof of god and no proof of lack of god. All people who claim to have proof really have nothing. Please go back and reread the proof of god thread if you want elaboration. 2.Science best theory ATM is the big bang and there could have been an infinite number of big bangs. Last time I checked they were still debating whether the universe will continually expand or eventually recollapse on it self. Point is they admit it is a theory and so far it fits best with our limited understanding. Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW, there is a big difference. 3.I agree a myth could be true, and the search for the truth is a good and noble thing. However there is absolutely no way anyone who is seriously looking at the question can use a book that was written thousands of years ago and translated several times as a source of reliable information. 4.I am refering to the creation of the universe. Religions have contradictory views on that and thus cannot all be right. When you add the fact that logic points to religion as being created to 1. explain the universe around us and 2. manipulate and control people, it makes it even more likely that they are all bogus. my personal belief is based upon logical reason but I have no solid proof that they all are bogus just that all but 1 have to be. Please dont confuse disbelief in religion as disbelief in god they are not the same thing. I never said that religions had to be destroyed dotn knwo where that came from, but I have to admit i'm not a fan of beets either. 5.Its not that im unhappy with religions just as i said before only 1 can be right. I do not think someone is stupid for believing in a religion, it is a personal thing. I believe people should come to their religious beliefs after thinking about it. Most people have their beliefs because of their upbringing. Very unlikely someone will grow up Christian in Pakistan or Buddhist in Salt Lake city. If your parents are Hindu chances are you will be Hindu etc... Please dont be confused I have stated it several times before but i will state it again I dont KNOW if god exists but I do not BELIEVE any religion is correct. This some people take for Atheism but it isnt, Atheism is the disbelief in god.

That i why I am agnostic I admit I do not know. But to claim you do know seems the hight of hubris. You were the one who asked where did trees come from. Then stated that a house is built by man and thus god exists. a silly arguement I merely replied to your argument. Like I said I'm agnostic I'm not trying to disprove god. I am pointing out that there is no, nada, nil, zilch, sweet f*** all proof of gods existence. We know for a fact that most religions claim to explain the creation of the universe. The explanations vary wildly, leading to the reasoned conclusion that they cannot all be right and are probably all created by man. Also religion has and continues to be used as a means of gaining power over others. All this leans me towards the conclusion that ALL religions are BOGUS. There are many more reasons, but those are the two strongest. Now saying all religions are bogus is not the same as saying god does not exist, just the god as described in those religions. I also accept the possibility of there being more than 1 god. but for sake of this arguement i will use god in the singular to also mean the plural.

ADPArker i refute the agnostic-athiest label. I do not disbelieve in god nor do I believe there is no god. I believe we cannot know. In any case gods existence or non existence is irrelevant. What i said was that i tend towards there being no god. I guess i should clarify, I meant that there is no CHRISTIAN god. As to a great creater god like being i have no clue. simply reply WHERE DID GOD COME FROM? explain that. You cannot. just because you do not know the answer to a question does not mean that GOD had to be behind it, it simply means that we are ignorant of all the facts.

ALLOY

DENSE if 1 D is first as SENSE = 0

BORIC is an adjective meaning from or containing boron, hahaha trying to split us up again arent you plainglazed

It'd be very tasty if it was PORC

im intigued sign me up

VOLUME ROCOCO - 1 ELEVEN - 0 IRIDIC - 0 CORPSE - 2 COVENS - 1 WOBBLE - 2 CHOOSY - 0 POLITE - 3 DONATE - 2 CHOOSE - 1 WABBLE - 1 MOTIVE - 2 maurie +10 curr3nt +25 Quag + 12 ppl please stop bringing things down

no I didnt take offence anyone, Its hard to convey the tone when typing OCTO: glad my experiences could be of help.

Eating iron ORE will make you sore as well