zapatos

I don't think root beer is a chemical component of dynamite.

Too fast on the rocks for one thing. Also, when it was flipped over it was stiff like a frisbee. The volume it expelled. Lack of any obvious mechanism for exploding.

I'm from the midwest so it's probably more conservative here. But the young women do often dress very provocatively. It's kind of creepy for me when someone who caught my eye turns toward me and I realize that she is about 15.

I have no idea what it is, but if I had to guess I'd say it's an attempt to get a high number of views on YouTube.

Where do you live? It is rare for me to see a bit of women's underware in public, I'm not sure exactly what you are seeing to be able to say women aren't wearing underware at all, and I have never seen 'tufts of pubic hair popping out' whether teasingly or in any other manner.

Hee hee. Based on how often men and women talk about each other, I'd have to guess that men and women think about each other with roughly the same frequency. The big difference I've seen is that when guys think about women, they tend to think about the woman that most recently passed through their field of vision. Women on the other hand (from an outsiders viewpoint) seem to be much more selective in who they think about. Seems like they are more likely to focus on a single man or a small set of men at one time.

I am not much of an 'around the campfire' type of person. I tend to take things at face value and do not see or seek out hiddden meaning. I'm always happy to entertain a new line of argument, but if I have to do mental gymnastics and kind of look with my eyes half closed, it usually does not interest me.

No, I have to admit that taking the time to prove myself to you did not occur to me. If you wish to think of me as a troll I guess I'll just have to live with that.

That was not an answer to your question, it was my response to you calling me a troll. Since you think I am trolling I figured that responding to your question would be a waste of time. I was doing my best to express my thoughts and you found that lacking. Why waste your time and mine?

It is nothing. That is why you cannot find anything about it and why it will not occur.

Oh right, thanks for reminding me! Also ring around the collar, the heartbreak of psoriasis, demons, the Loch Ness Monster...

Gingivitis, heart disease, mold in your shower, an asteroid strike, ingrown toenails, maximum entropy, the flavor of icing on your birthday cake... Reversal of the gravitational field comes after all of those worries.

My mind is in this universe. But it sounds to me as if you are saying the Universe has a 'mind' of its own, independent of us. Is that right? If so, where is it, and what does it do? What evidence do you have of it?

tar, The one thing that jumps out at me in your post, is your personification of the universe. Its 'power' and 'authority'. The feeling that you 'belong' to it. None of that strikes a chord with me at all. Do you feel the universe has some kind of 'mind'?

Thanks for the links. A bit dark and pessimistic for me. My philosophy shares many of the same ideas but is a bit more upbeat. Hope you didn't mind me batting your post and name around like a shuttlecock.

There you go again. Making assumptions about what is going on in my mind instead of addressing what I actually wrote. If you want to argue that it is stupid to compare your version of God to Bill Clinton, then you are going to have to argue with yourself. No one else here has made that claim. Is it really that hard to just read the words and make a comment on those words? If you want to make that assumption go right ahead. I have found it to be risky. If he wanted to clarify what he meant after I questioned his logic then he was certainly free to do so. No, I did not. I tried to show that the logic he used, sans any premises, was faulty and could be used to prove any stupid thing, such as the idea that Bill Clinton does not exist. That is why I said "...using your argument, you could explain why you don't believe in most people." An analogy is not supposed to be a duplicate of the original subject. The purpose is to highlight some aspect of that subject. In this case I used analogy to highlight the fact that his argument, without any premises or clarifications, was faulty. Another waste of time. You got that right. Bite me.

I don't know what you are talking about. You can claim anything about God that you want. So can Seriously Disabled. But I don't see how I can comment on what Seriously Disabled claims until he actually claims it. He did not say he was talking about the God of the bible, or Thor. He didn't mention good deeds, omnipotence, loving, or beneficience, so I don't see how I can comment on those traits, or how you can assume that he is talking about those traits. I was only commenting on what he actually said, not what I assumed he was thinking. For example, you seem to be assuming that I am saying that people cannot claim anything about God. I never said or implied any such thing. Maybe it would be better if you just talked about what I actually said, and not what you assume I am thinking. I already agreed with you that there is a good indication that the God with the traits you described probably does not exist.

Yes, justification for believing in a God. Which God are we talking about? Seriously Disabled did not mention a specific God, and not all Gods provide good deeds. That is why I mentioned the possibility that God does not perform Good Deeds. It is a bit unreasonable to expect that I would somehow know which version of God he is referencing. Or, for that matter, that you would know which version of God he is referencing. Yes, the one mentioned above by you, long after the post by Seriously Disabled that I was addressing. I wasn't addressing your post and the traits you assigned to a God.

In other words, I am wrong because God is omnipotent. Oh, you mean I'm wrong because God is omnipotent, AND loving. Wait, wait. Ok, he's omnipotent, loving, AND beneficent. THAT is why I'm wrong. I have never seen anyone move the goalposts more quickly in my life. If you are unable to be consistent from post to post we can't discuss. Oh, give me a break. Analogies are no longer acceptable for fear someone, somewhere may take exception? My analogy portrayed your mother as capable, caring, and intelligent. You are the one making it personal and looking for sympathy. Get over yourself.

Ah, a dismissive attitude. That is fine, we don't need to discuss it. Very thoughtful of you to also make me feel like shit in the same post. My condolences.

No, but what does matter to me is that if a person makes an assertion that they be prepared to back it up, or not make it in the first place. Dancing around a request for evidence is unseemly.

As far as I know it is because God is often referred to as 'He' in the bible.

You seem to be taking a rather shallow view of religion. You have come to the conclusion that He can't exist because He did not help you out of trouble last week (assuming he is omnipotent and beneficent). No religion claims that is how their God acts. You seem to feel if He has the ability, and it seems to you that he should be helping, then the lack of help is proof He does not exist. This is the same problem I had with the post from Seriously Disabled. If your logic worked, then you could also prove your mother did not exist. You were in trouble (you played ball instead of doing your homework and tomorrow the teacher will yell at you), your mother has the ability to help you (she could do some of the work to help you get it done on time), she wants to perform acts of kindness to you (she is your mother after all), yet she doesn't help. Is she a bastard? Does she not exist? Or is it possible there is something else going on that you might not be aware of? Perhaps she feels she is doing more good by not helping in that way.

Yes, it is traditionally defined that Gods are omnipotent. But an omnipotent God does not imply that a person in need will be helped, and therefore that criterion should not be used to determine whether or not something exists. It's not reasonable to say "God could have helped me but he didn't, therefore he does not exist". It's a bit like saying that I could have won the lottery last week, but I didn't, therefore the lottery does not exist. However, if you are going to change the criteria to 'he is omnipotent and he is not a bit of a shit', then yes, I agree. If he can help, and if he is not a bit of a shit, then him not helping indicates he may not exist. I am, however, unaware of any religion that claims that God will always do what is asked of him.

Ok, so no recent changes. That sounds reasonable. Although how long ago did Homo Sapiens emerge? I am not sure why you are telling me about monogamy and the marital system. You said, "Yes, we evolved in small groups so we are unable to really show much compassion and concern for those who are outside of what we regard as our group." My question is, how do you know that evolving in small groups caused us to have the inability to show much compassion for those outside our group? Perhpas it is the other way around. Perhaps we started with an inability to show much compassion beyond a limited number of people, and therefore we only formed small groups. Perhaps the limited compassion started well before humans evolved.