FREE TAPATALK APP

c4ts · 14th September 2004, 09:50 PM

Is God a shemale? A transvestite, perhaps? Why, the answer is yes, if you accept my premises to begin with. Here are my premises: 1.) There is a God 2.) God is a shemale 3.) 2+2=4
And of course, any mathematician can tell you that all my premises are logical and indisputably true. If God is a shemale, he/she must not be a non-shemale. According to my premises, God is a shemale, therefore Q.E.D.

jan · 15th September 2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jan in this thread, but it fits here too, more or less

Sorry to have to say this, but that doesn't convince me at all. According to the rules of this forum, if you want to prove the existence of God, you have to use weird sentences no other person can understand.

Since your argument is clear and easy to understand, it can't be a valid proof of God's existence, according to the forum's rules.

I may could give you some credit since your argument is not really an argument, but just an assertion, but that doesn't count either, since you didn't try to hide that fact.

DarkMagician · 15th September 2004, 02:43 PM

I chose indubitably.

Because I've always wanted to choose indubitably.

Gastric ReFlux · 15th September 2004, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
Originally posted by jan in this thread, but it fits here too, more or less

Sorry to have to say this, but that doesn't convince me at all. According to the rules of this forum, if you want to prove the existence of God, you have to use weird sentences no other person can understand.

Since your argument is clear and easy to understand, it can't be a valid proof of God's existence, according to the forum's rules.

I may could give you some credit since your argument is not really an argument, but just an assertion, but that doesn't count either, since you didn't try to hide that fact.

I disagree because I assert the Shemale is at least hot-looking and that would be good. If it's good, it must be God. Pretty simple to figure out, I dunno why you Randi people have so much trouble with the simple stuff.

c4ts · 15th September 2004, 09:35 PM

God being hot and shemale, is a shemale, and therefore shemale. Nothing can be known about God, except for the hot shemale part. I now turn to the book of Queens 2:81 "And God spake to ye of ambiguous gender, and she sayeth: I am a she he, the he is she, that he is not the she, but also she, in being a he she. And it was good, and there was much cross dressing, and confusion of the gendered roles."

Batman Jr. · 15th September 2004, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Queens 2:81 "And God spake to ye of ambiguous gender, and she sayeth: I am a she he, the he is she, that he is not the she, but also she, in being a he she. And it was good, and there was much cross dressing, and confusion of the gendered roles."

No, I think you're mistaken. That's actually Greenwich Village 2:81.

Marquis de Carabas · 15th September 2004, 10:00 PM

I have to abstain from voting. I wanted to answer "incontrovertibly" but it wasn't on the list.

Wudang · 16th September 2004, 05:35 AM

You smartasses don't know enough and don't know no logic.

God is life
Life's a bitch
therefore............

However we all know God has a beard. Therefore God is a bitch with a beard. I dunno where that leaves us. One of those divine mysteries I guess.

Upchurch · 16th September 2004, 06:40 AM

Waaaaait a minute... There's something wrong here...

I call SHENANIGANS!!
This can't be an actual poll! Planet X never agrees with anything or anyone!

Gastric ReFlux · 16th September 2004, 07:20 AM

A poll is democratic.

God created the rights that inspired the founders of America.

The democratic process, numbers of believers far exceed those who deny the existence of God.

Therfore, God exists through the inspired righteousness of democracy, which is God-given and God-maintained. See omniscience and omnipotence for further explanation.

Thank you.

Oleron · 16th September 2004, 08:09 AM

I want to know why there's an "Indubitably" option but no "Elementary, my dear Watson" option.

I mean, if we're going to go all Victorian, old bean....

c4ts · 16th September 2004, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wudang
You smartasses don't know enough and don't know no logic.

God is life
Life's a bitch
therefore............

However we all know God has a beard. Therefore God is a bitch with a beard. I dunno where that leaves us. One of those divine mysteries I guess.

I thought God was supposed to be faceless.

Upchurch · 16th September 2004, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
I thought God was supposed to be faceless.

According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)?

c4ts · 16th September 2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)?

I thought Jesus was the guy with the face. I'm confused, he doesn't seem to distinguish between the two very well. He also says Jesus was around before he was born or something like that.

Upchurch · 16th September 2004, 01:25 PM

And that Jesus is/are gluons. Who knows. I'm not high enough to understand Jack Chick.

TragicMonkey · 16th September 2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Upchurch
According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)?

Chick sticks the artistic convention of not drawing the face of Jesus....it was a convention followed by Muslim artists for centuries: they wouldn't draw the faces of either Mohammed or his mother.

It would have been a blow to medieval and Renaissance art if most Christians did that, wouldn't it?

c4ts · 16th September 2004, 03:59 PM

You are right, Jesus in heaven is depicted without a face, but so is God! In this tract (page 16), you can clearly see that God and Jesus are represented as seperate entities, each without faces. God is the faceless figure on the throne, Jesus is the figure standing up:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0033/0033_01.asp

But look at page 22 of this tract:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0081/0081_01.asp

Here, Jesus is in heaven, with a face. The robed figure standing up which looked like what I assumed to be Jesus is now supposed to be God, I think. Are you confused yet?

Wudang · 17th September 2004, 01:17 AM

Even more confusing, in one of the early books of the Bible doesn't Jacob get punished for glimpsing god's bum? So he has a bum, a beard but no face? Hideous accident or genetic engineering gone mad?

BeholdTheTruth · 18th September 2004, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jan

If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet? And if a person (that same person x or a different one, y) were able to always make those predictions of x happen, would that second or first person be a kind of god?

c4ts · 18th September 2004, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet? And if a person (that same person x or a different one, y) were able to always make those predictions of x happen, would that second or first person be a kind of god?

No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex.

BeholdTheTruth · 18th September 2004, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex.

What do you call a Rex with an Oedipus up his ass? Constipated.

jan · 18th September 2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet?

If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet?

And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced.

c4ts · 18th September 2004, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet?

And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced.

I think it was just a question. Maybe he was trying to be philosophical. Maybe he was stoned. Who knows?

BeholdTheTruth · 18th September 2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet?

And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced.

I was not asking just you. But your post was a good place for what a "prophet" and a "god" is and is not.

For example, a "prophet" really is a prophet to the extent that he or she makes predictions that come true. And he or she is a bad prophet to the extent that his or her predictions do not come true.

Obviously, we'd all like to make profitable bets on the correct predictions of real, and really good "prophets". That's what stock tips are all about. And betting on football games. The trouble of course is that most folks past and present who have claimed or do claim to be "prophets" would rather have us make tangible bets of our time and our money and our families and other of our resources here and now with some promised profit pay-off way off in the future. And not just religious bets with real $ love offerings. Any time your Financial Advisor gives you advice, he or she is (profitably for them, but maybe not profitably for you) playing prophet. Obviously, in either the spiritual case or the material one, that is very likely not to be a good bet.

As for me trying to prove the existence of God, such a proof is not possible. So consider the Puzzle to be a proof of the non-existence of God for those able to shake off the god meme that has as much of a hold in its own way on atheists as it has on fundamentalists. The only difference being that the fundies know that they are hooked and like it whereas most atheists are hooked and don't know it. Which why they get so touchy whenever the word "god" is used in their presence, instead of just simply letting the word "God" roll off their backs like water off a duck's, uh, back.

BeholdTheTruth · 18th September 2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
I think it was just a question. Maybe he was trying to be philosophical. Maybe he was stoned. Who knows?

Have you ever wondered why when you raise up a stone from a horizontal to a vertical position it looks like the number 1 answer to the question: How much is 3 - 2? :-0)

EdipisReks · 18th September 2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex.

quit with the jokes!

EdipisReks · 18th September 2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth
What do you call a Rex with an Oedipus up his ass? Constipated.

this time, i'm gouging YOUR eyes out.

LuxFerum · 19th September 2004, 06:28 AM

Guidelines

Be civil and polite.

EdipisReks · 19th September 2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LuxFerum
Guidelines

Be civil and polite.

unbelievable. one can't make a sophocles reference, anymore. one used to be able to, before the education standards dropped.

Iacchus · 20th September 2004, 03:16 AM

While I idubitably believe God has his bisexual characteristics, I prefer to believe in the Big Bang myself. Of course that would imply that God had a mistress now wouldn't it? Ha ha ha!

Kimpatsu · 20th September 2004, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
I thought God was supposed to be faceless.

Nah, but (s)he's certainly clueless.

c4ts · 20th September 2004, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
While I idubitably believe God has his bisexual characteristics, I prefer to believe in the Big Bang myself. Of course that would imply that God had a mistress now wouldn't it? Ha ha ha!

And I thought cosmology was confusing enough...

Atlas · 20th September 2004, 09:42 AM

The Bible says HE! HE, HE, HE, HE, HE. Why is this funny?

It's as if you think a guy wouldn't give birth to the cosmos or grant us the milk of human kindness.

Proof! I demand proof c4ts. Show me some topless photos.

(Or send them to me privately. I promise to look them over very carefully.)

c4ts · 20th September 2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
The Bible says HE! HE, HE, HE, HE, HE. Why is this funny?

It's as if you think a guy wouldn't give birth to the cosmos or grant us the milk of human kindness.

Proof! I demand proof c4ts. Show me some topless photos.

(Or send them to me privately. I promise to look them over very carefully.)

I already proved it with the power of fallacious logic!

Atlas · 20th September 2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
I already proved it with the power of fallacious logic!

Yes you have. Your logic was neither Phallushus nor fellatious.

You proved God is a girly-man and by implication, a Democrat.

I was only asking for pictures as a serious student of religion, that much was clear I hope.

Kimpatsu · 20th September 2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
You proved God is a girly-man and by implication, a Democrat.

Nah, a shemale god would be a Republican; he/she likes shafting all Americans up the arse, after all...

Atlas · 20th September 2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Nah, a shemale god would be a Republican; he/she likes shafting all Americans up the arse, after all...

I take back everything I said and will never turn my back on the Lord again.

(O Lord, Hear my prayer... I am Independent and no one to take notice of. By the way, that's a pretty dress you're wearing. No, I don't think it makes you look fat. But Kimpatsu does. Ream Kimpatsu - He is a Philosopher and a Democrat and very much deserves your attention.)

Wudang · 20th September 2004, 05:55 PM

So what's with that "Get thee behind me, Satan" line?

Atlas · 20th September 2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wudang
So what's with that "Get thee behind me, Satan" line?

A shemale, a pitcher, and a catcher.

Kimpatsu · 20th September 2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
I take back everything I said and will never turn my back on the Lord again.

(O Lord, Hear my prayer... I am Independent and no one to take notice of. By the way, that's a pretty dress you're wearing. No, I don't think it makes you look fat. But Kimpatsu does. Ream Kimpatsu - He is a Philosopher and a Democrat and very much deserves your attention.)

I'm not a Democrat; I'm in the "Anyone but Bush" camp. But you are far more camp than me...

14th September 2004, 09:50 PM	#1
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Is god a shemale? Is God a shemale? A transvestite, perhaps? Why, the answer is yes, if you accept my premises to begin with. Here are my premises: 1.) There is a God 2.) God is a shemale 3.) 2+2=4 And of course, any mathematician can tell you that all my premises are logical and indisputably true. If God is a shemale, he/she must not be a non-shemale. According to my premises, God is a shemale, therefore Q.E.D.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

15th September 2004, 02:33 PM	#2
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601	Quote: Originally posted by jan in this thread, but it fits here too, more or less Sorry to have to say this, but that doesn't convince me at all. According to the rules of this forum, if you want to prove the existence of God, you have to use weird sentences no other person can understand. Since your argument is clear and easy to understand, it can't be a valid proof of God's existence, according to the forum's rules. I may could give you some credit since your argument is not really an argument, but just an assertion, but that doesn't count either, since you didn't try to hide that fact.
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601

15th September 2004, 02:43 PM	#3
DarkMagician Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 1,539	I chose indubitably. Because I've always wanted to choose indubitably.
	__________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" \| "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" \| "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts \| Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed \| I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.

15th September 2004, 05:04 PM	#4
Gastric ReFlux Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 257	Quote: Originally posted by jan Originally posted by jan in this thread, but it fits here too, more or less Sorry to have to say this, but that doesn't convince me at all. According to the rules of this forum, if you want to prove the existence of God, you have to use weird sentences no other person can understand. Since your argument is clear and easy to understand, it can't be a valid proof of God's existence, according to the forum's rules. I may could give you some credit since your argument is not really an argument, but just an assertion, but that doesn't count either, since you didn't try to hide that fact. I disagree because I assert the Shemale is at least hot-looking and that would be good. If it's good, it must be God. Pretty simple to figure out, I dunno why you Randi people have so much trouble with the simple stuff.
	__________________ Coolest smiley in the world right here at the Randi forums: Quote: but how do you know Satan didn't plant other gods, saviors and demons in history? YOU DON'T Every argument made by anti-God people are based on naturalistic presuppositions and Satan could very well be behind these presuppositions. Think about it. Your precious ''rational and predictable world'' may just be an illusion created by God's enemy. --1inChrist

15th September 2004, 09:35 PM	#5
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	God being hot and shemale, is a shemale, and therefore shemale. Nothing can be known about God, except for the hot shemale part. I now turn to the book of Queens 2:81 "And God spake to ye of ambiguous gender, and she sayeth: I am a she he, the he is she, that he is not the she, but also she, in being a he she. And it was good, and there was much cross dressing, and confusion of the gendered roles."
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

15th September 2004, 09:54 PM	#6
Batman Jr. Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,255	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts Queens 2:81 "And God spake to ye of ambiguous gender, and she sayeth: I am a she he, the he is she, that he is not the she, but also she, in being a he she. And it was good, and there was much cross dressing, and confusion of the gendered roles." No, I think you're mistaken. That's actually Greenwich Village 2:81.

15th September 2004, 10:00 PM	#7
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	I have to abstain from voting. I wanted to answer "incontrovertibly" but it wasn't on the list.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

16th September 2004, 05:35 AM	#8
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317	You smartasses don't know enough and don't know no logic. God is life Life's a bitch therefore............ However we all know God has a beard. Therefore God is a bitch with a beard. I dunno where that leaves us. One of those divine mysteries I guess.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

16th September 2004, 06:40 AM	#9
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Waaaaait a minute... There's something wrong here... I call SHENANIGANS!! This can't be an actual poll! Planet X never agrees with anything or anyone!

16th September 2004, 07:20 AM	#10
Gastric ReFlux Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 257	A poll is democratic. God created the rights that inspired the founders of America. The democratic process, numbers of believers far exceed those who deny the existence of God. Therfore, God exists through the inspired righteousness of democracy, which is God-given and God-maintained. See omniscience and omnipotence for further explanation. Thank you.
	__________________ Coolest smiley in the world right here at the Randi forums: Quote: but how do you know Satan didn't plant other gods, saviors and demons in history? YOU DON'T Every argument made by anti-God people are based on naturalistic presuppositions and Satan could very well be behind these presuppositions. Think about it. Your precious ''rational and predictable world'' may just be an illusion created by God's enemy. --1inChrist

16th September 2004, 08:09 AM	#11
Oleron Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Belfast, NI. Posts: 948	I want to know why there's an "Indubitably" option but no "Elementary, my dear Watson" option. I mean, if we're going to go all Victorian, old bean....

16th September 2004, 12:51 PM	#12
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by Wudang You smartasses don't know enough and don't know no logic. God is life Life's a bitch therefore............ However we all know God has a beard. Therefore God is a bitch with a beard. I dunno where that leaves us. One of those divine mysteries I guess. I thought God was supposed to be faceless.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

16th September 2004, 01:02 PM	#13
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts I thought God was supposed to be faceless. According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)?

16th September 2004, 01:06 PM	#14
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)? I thought Jesus was the guy with the face. I'm confused, he doesn't seem to distinguish between the two very well. He also says Jesus was around before he was born or something like that.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

16th September 2004, 01:25 PM	#15
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	And that Jesus is/are gluons. Who knows. I'm not high enough to understand Jack Chick.

16th September 2004, 01:27 PM	#16
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,285	Quote: Originally posted by Upchurch According the book of Chick, isn't that just Jesus (when he's in heaven, that is)? Chick sticks the artistic convention of not drawing the face of Jesus....it was a convention followed by Muslim artists for centuries: they wouldn't draw the faces of either Mohammed or his mother. It would have been a blow to medieval and Renaissance art if most Christians did that, wouldn't it?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

16th September 2004, 03:59 PM	#17
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	You are right, Jesus in heaven is depicted without a face, but so is God! In this tract (page 16), you can clearly see that God and Jesus are represented as seperate entities, each without faces. God is the faceless figure on the throne, Jesus is the figure standing up: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0033/0033_01.asp But look at page 22 of this tract: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0081/0081_01.asp Here, Jesus is in heaven, with a face. The robed figure standing up which looked like what I assumed to be Jesus is now supposed to be God, I think. Are you confused yet?
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

17th September 2004, 01:17 AM	#18
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317	Even more confusing, in one of the early books of the Bible doesn't Jacob get punished for glimpsing god's bum? So he has a bum, a beard but no face? Hideous accident or genetic engineering gone mad?
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

18th September 2004, 05:48 AM	#19
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	Quote: Originally posted by jan If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet? And if a person (that same person x or a different one, y) were able to always make those predictions of x happen, would that second or first person be a kind of god?
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

18th September 2004, 08:10 AM	#20
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet? And if a person (that same person x or a different one, y) were able to always make those predictions of x happen, would that second or first person be a kind of god? No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th September 2004, 08:19 AM	#21
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex. What do you call a Rex with an Oedipus up his ass? Constipated.
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

18th September 2004, 08:36 AM	#22
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601	Quote: Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth If person x was able to always make predictions that came out true, would person x be a prophet? If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet? And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced.
jan Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 601

18th September 2004, 09:05 AM	#23
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by jan If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet? And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced. I think it was just a question. Maybe he was trying to be philosophical. Maybe he was stoned. Who knows?
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

18th September 2004, 09:29 AM	#24
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	Quote: Originally posted by jan If I stick to trivial predictions, I am able to make predictions that come out true. Am I a prophet? And why are you asking this me? Is your post to be considered an obscure proof for the existence of god? If so, count me as convinced. I was not asking just you. But your post was a good place for what a "prophet" and a "god" is and is not. For example, a "prophet" really is a prophet to the extent that he or she makes predictions that come true. And he or she is a bad prophet to the extent that his or her predictions do not come true. Obviously, we'd all like to make profitable bets on the correct predictions of real, and really good "prophets". That's what stock tips are all about. And betting on football games. The trouble of course is that most folks past and present who have claimed or do claim to be "prophets" would rather have us make tangible bets of our time and our money and our families and other of our resources here and now with some promised profit pay-off way off in the future. And not just religious bets with real $ love offerings. Any time your Financial Advisor gives you advice, he or she is (profitably for them, but maybe not profitably for you) playing prophet. Obviously, in either the spiritual case or the material one, that is very likely not to be a good bet. As for me trying to prove the existence of God, such a proof is not possible. So consider the Puzzle to be a proof of the non-existence of God for those able to shake off the god meme that has as much of a hold in its own way on atheists as it has on fundamentalists. The only difference being that the fundies know that they are hooked and like it whereas most atheists are hooked and don't know it. Which why they get so touchy whenever the word "god" is used in their presence, instead of just simply letting the word "God" roll off their backs like water off a duck's, uh, back.
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

18th September 2004, 09:34 AM	#25
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts I think it was just a question. Maybe he was trying to be philosophical. Maybe he was stoned. Who knows? Have you ever wondered why when you raise up a stone from a horizontal to a vertical position it looks like the number 1 answer to the question: How much is 3 - 2? :-0)
BeholdTheTruth Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 752

18th September 2004, 09:55 PM	#26
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts No, he'd just be Oedipus Rex. quit with the jokes!
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

18th September 2004, 09:56 PM	#27
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	Quote: Originally posted by BeholdTheTruth What do you call a Rex with an Oedipus up his ass? Constipated. this time, i'm gouging YOUR eyes out.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

19th September 2004, 06:28 AM	#28
LuxFerum Augustus Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 5,417	Guidelines Be civil and polite.
	__________________ Jos kad bih znala sta pametno da napisem! Eh, nikad se ne zna. Mozda me netko i razumije. - Tanja Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? - George Carlin

19th September 2004, 05:35 PM	#29
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	Quote: Originally posted by LuxFerum Guidelines Be civil and polite. unbelievable. one can't make a sophocles reference, anymore. one used to be able to, before the education standards dropped.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

20th September 2004, 03:16 AM	#30
Iacchus Suspended Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 10,085	While I idubitably believe God has his bisexual characteristics, I prefer to believe in the Big Bang myself. Of course that would imply that God had a mistress now wouldn't it? Ha ha ha!

20th September 2004, 05:01 AM	#31
Kimpatsu Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tokyo Posts: 3,145	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts I thought God was supposed to be faceless. Nah, but (s)he's certainly clueless.
	__________________ Tony Kehoe "Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it. "--Richard Dawkins

20th September 2004, 08:29 AM	#32
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by Iacchus While I idubitably believe God has his bisexual characteristics, I prefer to believe in the Big Bang myself. Of course that would imply that God had a mistress now wouldn't it? Ha ha ha! And I thought cosmology was confusing enough...
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

20th September 2004, 09:42 AM	#33
Atlas Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,229	The Bible says HE! HE, HE, HE, HE, HE. Why is this funny? It's as if you think a guy wouldn't give birth to the cosmos or grant us the milk of human kindness. Proof! I demand proof c4ts. Show me some topless photos. (Or send them to me privately. I promise to look them over very carefully.)
Atlas Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,229	__________________ This, above all: to thine own self be true. (Polonius to Laertes) Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. - (Benford's law of controversy)

20th September 2004, 10:14 AM	#34
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Originally posted by Atlas The Bible says HE! HE, HE, HE, HE, HE. Why is this funny? It's as if you think a guy wouldn't give birth to the cosmos or grant us the milk of human kindness. Proof! I demand proof c4ts. Show me some topless photos. (Or send them to me privately. I promise to look them over very carefully.) I already proved it with the power of fallacious logic!
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

20th September 2004, 10:29 AM	#35
Atlas Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,229	Quote: Originally posted by c4ts I already proved it with the power of fallacious logic! Yes you have. Your logic was neither Phallushus nor fellatious. You proved God is a girly-man and by implication, a Democrat. I was only asking for pictures as a serious student of religion, that much was clear I hope.
Atlas Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 2,229	__________________ This, above all: to thine own self be true. (Polonius to Laertes) Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. - (Benford's law of controversy)