[Image-1]
Please stop, you kneeling nitwit, with the tedious FB posts about God and how he could do without us but we couldn’t do without him. Utter, total horseshit on a hot shingle. I can’t believe you’re as old as you are and still believe in that foul tripe your Church drips out, especially in light of all the sexual abuse that has gone on for centuries. I’m seriously thinking of sending you a BBQ crucifix lighter so you’ll get the message. —Too Old To Believe In Biblical Fairy Tales
This article appears in Jul 2-8, 2015.
Am I not living proof?!
“Utter, total horseshit on a hot shingle.” Can you prove that?
Most Christians are fucking hypocrites.
^^^ If that is the case then why are so many christians having sex with hypocrites?
How about just unfriending them?
You don’t HAVE to see their bat-shit posts.
http://susannemeyerfitzsimmons.com/wp-cont…
Now, Jesus, when was the last time you appeared in a taco? Honestly?
Yes, MM, the inability of science to prove that God exists is actually proof that he/she/it doesn’t exist. Can you prove otherwise? I’m looking forward to your “proof”, be sure to include all your sources. I’ll be waiting…
PS; that’s my OPINION, and it requires no proof.
There is an unfollow feature on Facebook.
Just because you don’t agree with a person’s opinion doesn’t make them, or you, wrong.
Every dislike I get is like driving the nails in further…
“Yes, MM, the inability of science to prove that God exists is actually proof that he/she doesn’t exist.” Stephen “Hot Blow” Harper
Two points:
(1) Too Old To Believe asserted that religion is “Utter, total horseshit on a hot shingle.” I point this out to emphasize that it was HIS assertion, not mine. That being the case I am under no obligation to “prove” anything. However, it is NOT the case with Too Old To Believe since it was HIS truth claim. Predictably, he failed to do so.
(2) It was predictable since scientific “proof” is inoperative when dealing with questions which are not reducible to matter-in-motion. Such questions concern things like Beauty, Goodness, and Truth and so on, the very things that make human life meaningful. (Being meaningful itself, of course, is similarly not reducible to matter-in-motion and so transcends any crude attempt at scientific reductionism.)
To claim that your assertion is simply your opinion and so requires no proof is false. Your assertion, like that of Too Old To Believe, is a truth claim and DOES require proof. Failure to do so can only result in your joining him on the materialistic trash heap of scientific reductionism.
Next.
So delete them then! Who cares what they believe? If they want to believe in god, the boogie man or the fucking flying spaghetti monster, it affects your life in NO way at all. What a waste of time and energy for you to post this bitch and whatever thought you are giving it.
Step one: Delete them. Step two: Question why exactly you are so bothered by what other people do when it impacts you in no way, and seriously consider if that time/energy would be better spent on something, you know, even remotely productive. Step three: obtain life.
THE SELF-REGARDING MAN
“If they want to believe in God, the boogie man or the fucking flying spaghetti monster, it affects your life in NO way at all.” Naveed, 7:19AM
The self-regarding man has only one criterion by which to judge anything, including the views of others. That criterion is the degree to which those views affect his personal life. That is all that matters to the self-regarding man. He is incapable of formulating impartial reasons because such reasons, by definition, lie outside his self-regard. This, of course, is a large part of what is meant by “stupidity.” It consists of the inability to consider anything that lies outside his private, personal concern. He is without reflection on anything else. One can only conclude that the self-regarding man and the stupid man are interchangeable concepts.
10-4 dad. I’m glad you’re proud of me!!!!
My reply was deleted. Basically, it said the same thing as “The Self-Regarding Man.”
Actually two of my replies were deleted. I replied to Hot Blow above which was deleted, he replied to me arguing that the only valid knowledge was scientific knowledge (also deleted) and my reply to his claim about scientific knowledge. (Deleted)
My argument, roughly, was that scientific knowledge proceeded by observation and experiment, dealt only with the physical world and yielded only measured observables whereas the vast percentage of our knowledge is not of this sort. It relates to our conceptual knowledge, knowledge based on our understanding of the non-physical world, of ideas. For example, this comment is not reducible to observation and experiment. It is not reducible to “measured observables.” To claim that it is is incoherent. Thank you.