I already told you....it's only a problem once you run out. Nothing you're saying offends or bothers me in the least. It's your story and if that's what you choose to believe then by all means do so. I just find it silly that grown educated men can believe in such stuff. Sorry.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/07/proof-heaven-author-debunked/313681/ http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a18992/proof-of-heaven-potter/
wow. you just offended millions of believers currently and in the past with that sentence. I know my parents believed and many others. I can't believe an educated man, although a bears fans, thinks there's nothing. No God. No higher power. Nothing. Our world, babies, kittens, puppies, our lives, nature, the universe, rain, wind, water, air, and it was all there just hanging out for a billion years. it had to come from somewhere. the easy answer is to believe it was there all along and there is no God. Sure it's hokey to believe in a heaven or hell with purely gates, music playing or fire and brimstone and a guy with a pitchfork waiting for you, or Coach K from Duke. That's an easy way out of it. like the Donovan said in the movie "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - "what you believe, when asking Indiana Jones if he believes in the Cup of Jesus Christ and it's healing powers ? Hey, it's hokey to have thoughts and beliefs that I and many people do. Sure if you get run over and mangled by a train - how could your soul go to heaven? Many people believe when you die, that's it. In the dirt and in the coffin in the ground. That's it. Thanks for coming out. Well, that's easy to do. I just feel and believe Bears that there is something else out there and something saved me from dying May 9th. Maybe I'm wrong and when you die, that's it. The lights go out and the party is over. I or you won't know who is right until we die and find out for ourselves. That's the ultimate price of knowing what happens to us when we die -- we gotta die FIRST to find out. No one will tell us about it for us. I have an well educated older brother who is a Doctor. He's just like you -- he pokes holes in everything. Everything to him as another answer or snide comment. I can play that game too. At some point though, you either believe or not. My Father would be ashamed of him now bc he has said, although he sends his kids to a Catholic school, that he doesn't believe in God. He feels everything was there before. Well people can take the other side of that and debunk him too. That's what makes us believers vs non-believers like yourselves. That's your right, but we have ours too and it's not silly. To call me out and call my belief silly is where you're wrong. It's my belief and my feelings towards it. That's not silly. I can call you silly and ignorant for being an atheist, but I don't. that's how you feel. I can't correct you bc I have no authority too. It's your belief.
I'm sure it offends a ton of people....but I'm also positive that I don't really care who I offend. I'm not attempting to convince you to stop believing. I never said I believe in nothing. I don't believe in your god. The biblical god of Abraham. I don't believe in any of this worlds religions. I think they are all man made crap. Religions started because man in the ancient world needed a way to explain to himself where the world came from. Every civilization in history has creation stories and god(s). Religion eventually became a tool to control the masses. Science has advanced greatly and we now have a better understanding of the world around us. Science makes god obsolete. But religion has been controlling minds for so long and it's such a huge business that it hasn't went away yet. I don't know why we are here. Oh why puppies and kitties and everything else is either. Man has learned and figured out a lot but honestly...we probably only know less than 1% of what the universe is and how it works. We all come from energy....and I think we all recycle as energy after death. That goes for every living being on the planet. Everything is energy and energy can't be created or destroyed. As for death.....well....do you happen to remember the 13.8 billion or so years before you were born? I don't either. I picture death being something like that. I'm sure everything came from something or somewhere...it just wasn't your god. Because....common sense. The bible creation story was copied from previous civilizations creation stories....it's horseshit. I don't believe everything was just there....most atheists don't believe that. We simply don't make up fiction to cover up what we don't know. It's not easy to believe there's nothing after you die. It's actually very hard and slightly terrifying. The worst part is I won't even know I was right because I won't have a conscious anymore. I don't even get a moment to say I told you so. It's like the ending of the Sopranos...just blackness. It's easy to believe death isn't the end because it removes the fear and finality of death. I'm not happy with death being the end of it all. I'm in my 60's now...and even being in pretty good health...I am faced with the realization that the majority of my life is over and the day I cease to exist grows closer and closer. It's been a great ride so I don't complain too much about it. But fuck if I'm gonna drop to my knees and pray to an invisible man that never talks to me simply because I'm scared of dying. That's mind control...and I refuse to partake in it. Believing a fairy tale in the absence of knowledge is wrong, in my opinion.
BWW, I used to be a raging atheists. One night I took 5 hits of LSD , 5 hits of yellow microdots, smoked bong hits with coke on top (snow caps) and drank a 12 pack of beer. About 3AM satan came up and started talking to me and telling all the bad things I did in my life were good. I got down on my knees and started calling for God, a voice from the sky answered my call. The voice asked me if I was willing to give up my material things. I said yes and changed from atheism to believing in God. I was more anal about atheism than you are. Don't tell me it was a trip, because it was more real than life itself.
Here's another interesting article. This will put more of an onus on women reporting sexual abuse. Opinion There's a pattern to credible #MeToo allegations. The one against Steve Paikin doesn't fit: Robyn Urback Sexual misconduct is pathological, and there are almost always multiple victims. Yet here, there's just one By Robyn Urback, CBC News Posted: Feb 09, 2018 4:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 09, 2018 4:00 AM ET Many people will take the case of Steve Paikin as evidence that #MeToo has gone off the rails: that a man can be destroyed by a single allegation. If anything, it shows the opposite: that evidence, corroboration and good judgment still matter. (Colin McConnell/Toronto Star via Getty Images, Bruce Reeve/CBC) There is a pattern, of sorts, to almost every legitimate high-profile #MeToo allegation. A credible media outlet publishes a claim against a particular man, usually after months — sometimes years — of investigation. The accuser or accusers are typically named, but occasionally their identities are withheld for fear of public retaliation. In the days following the initial report, other victims often come forward. This happened in the cases of Harvey Weinstein, Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Calgary MP Kent Hehr (though allegations against him started on Twitter) and many others. The reason is simple: sexual misconduct is usually pathological, and where there is one victim, there are commonly others. The act of one woman coming forward can embolden others to share their stories — especially where there are marked similarities in encounters with the man in question — which explains why we frequently see a wave of accusations following an initial report. What happens next depends on the accused: some men will concede they behaved inappropriately and step away from the public arena, while others will remain bizarrely defiant, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In most cases, though, the accused's reputation is in tatters and his career likely ruined. Allegations against Steve Paikin The situation involving Steve Paikin, the TVO host accused of making inappropriate sexual comments to former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson, bypasses almost every element of this pattern. The initial accusation came via a blog entry Thomson wrote on her Women's Post website. She didn't name Paikin in that post, writing only that a political talk show host with whom she shared a lunch (along with her assistant) during the 2010 mayoral campaign had asked her for sex in exchange for a spot on his show. Thomson also emailed her accusation to Paikin, who immediately brought it to the attention of his superiors at TVO. The next day, TVO announced it was launching a third-party investigation, something that Paikin has since said he welcomes wholeheartedly. In the days following the initial accusation, there has been no corroboration. A handful of people who worked on Thomson's campaign said they had no knowledge of the incident. The public has heard nothing from the assistant who was reportedly at the lunch. More telling is the fact that no other women have come forward. Paikin has been on the air for decades, and he has probably interviewed thousands of women. Thomson wrote that Paikin bragged that his offer of sex for a guest spot worked "50 per cent of the time," which would imply he has propositioned numerous other women. We haven't heard from a single one. Meanwhile, Paikin's confidence that he will be exonerated is so robust, you either have to believe he's innocent or completely deranged. I believe the former. I know Paikin in a professional capacity. I've appeared on his show a few times (for the record, the only thing I had to give up was a release form) and he's always been kind, courteous and almost impossibly fair-minded. There is of course the possibility Thomson's allegation is true. And indeed, some people will insist that all women — Thomson included — are to be believed regardless of whether there is evidence to support their assertions. But to subscribe to such a world view requires a willingness to sacrifice any man's reputation and livelihood simply for the sake of a principle, regardless of whether he actually did something wrong. We have the capacity to weigh probabilities and analyze information for a reason. Justice is hardly served by setting those capabilities aside. Vetting rumours Readers often accuse those in the media of rushing to judgment on these sorts of things. On that note, I'll let you in on a little Media Party secret: most bombshell allegations of sexual impropriety are rarely bombshells in newsrooms. There were rumours about Jian Ghomeshi. Rumours about Patrick Brown. Rumours about other high-profile men whose stories may or may not ever become public. It's possible I'm out of the loop on this one, but as far as I know, Paikin's name was never in that mill. A former colleague recently pointed out to me that readers might perceive an absence of due process in #MeToo cases because they are never privy to those rumours, nor do they hear about the extensive research that is necessary to turn a rumour into a publishable report. Hours are spent interviewing friends, family members, colleagues, poring over saved social media posts, reviewing cellphone records, vetting drafts with lawyers and so forth. Patrick Brown speaks during a news conference at Queen's Park last month to address allegations of sexual misconduct reported by CTV. He denied the allegations but would step down as leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives hours later. (Aaron Vincent Elkaim/Canadian Press) Ultimately, we're all terrified of getting it wrong, knowing that our news outlet's reputation is on the line, along with the reputation of the man in question. The decision to publish is never taken lightly. All of which is to say, unless you believe the theory that Fake News is everywhere, there is good reason to trust in the veracity of allegations reported in the mainstream media. And one more thing. Many people will take the case of Steve Paikin as evidence #MeToo has gone off the rails: that a man can be destroyed by a single allegation. If anything, it shows the opposite: that evidence, corroboration and good judgment still matter, and that in the absence of a reasonable degree of proof, a man's reputation can withstand a claim of impropriety (this is not to minimize the personal turmoil Paikin must have endured over the past week, mind you). Paikin is still in his hosting chair and will soon moderate an upcoming debate for the Ontario PC leadership. And unless there is corroborating evidence to the contrary, that's exactly where he should be.
Not sure how #MeToo went to Jesus... Well, if all of these people are "knowing" g4wd, but "it" hasn't contacted me, I'm probably not needed for the "great battle" of the Apocalypse. I'll just watch from here. <reloads the bullet with a full vial> There is just too much "unproven magic" in religion. Remember, back in those days (and up until the 17th century in Western Europe - later in some cultures), if you had a mole on your face or had a birth defect, you were probably a witch or in commerce with the devil (disproving fallacies one century at a time). Religion also suggest "servitude" with Masters/Lords and their followers, and as we all know, with "masters" come "slaves". With slavery comes misery, hardship and death, but the slaves are "promised" a better place once they've given their life (and valuables) to their masters. Yeah... tHaT sOuNdS LiKe A gOoD dEaL. Give me your wealth and earthly possessions, I'll watch over it for you/put it to "good use", and when you die, you can see the Maker and live in the Sky Mansion. HA! What a fucking scam! Thanks Constantine! I think Gid had a marvelous experience. Drugs can definitely be related to religious experiences. Numerous global cultures have ventured there, including the "savages". Peyote, ayahuasca, DMT, lysergic, psylo... way too many "portals" to name. DMT, the Jesus/God drug: (from an Abrahamic religious website) The physical and spiritual aspects of human beings are closely intertwined. The spiritual impacts the physical and vice-versa. It is possible that a psychedelic drug such as dimethyltryptamine could temporarily give a person greater access to the spiritual world. God’s strong warnings about sorcery (pharmakeia), mediums, witchcraft, etc., make it clear that such activities do indeed have spiritual implications (Leviticus 19:31; Galatians 5:20; Revelation 9:21). Contacting the spirit world through psychedelic drugs and/or sorcery appears to be possible; therefore, God strictly prohibits it. (back to me) If g4wd prohibits drug use, but drug use is the vehicle that allows you and the master to converse... is it a valid conversation? Is it just you talking to you, but you're so far into your trip/journey, that you can't really put it all together very clearly? Maybe drugs help you realize that g4wd DOESN'T EXIST and that would better explain why "it" doesn't want you using them. #TowerOfBabel Tommy Chong: On the meaning of God “It's not about if there's an entity that judges right or wrong,” Chong says. “The Buddhists know there isn't [a God] and the Daoists also know there isn't. What humanity has to realize is what most potheads realize – that there is only now and there is only you and that's all there is.” Carl Sagan: "Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
It went to religion because Al brought God up in a post or two and it didn't really affect the conversation in any way but like all things internet someone had to atheist rage and make it all about that.
This was where it started....with Al telling me that I can't relevantly debate a topic because I don't believe in his god.
If religious people don't want to talk to me, that's cool. It would be, even symbolically, g4wd-like to ignore me. I think g4wd and I understand each other perfectly. #belikeg4wd
What a surprise. God hating authors and medical people disputing the claims of God believing authors and medical people. The "disputers" have no proof that he didn't see what he claimed to see. Just like BWW and baby and now firehalo have no proof either that God doesn't exist. Just cheap shots at people who do.
I've never pretended that I could offer proof that God doesn't exist. You're completely inaccurate about that Al. On the same note, I have no proof that he doesn't exist (except for my common sense and logic) just as you have NO proof that God does exist. If you did you would have offered it before now.
The issue that I brought up was NOT the existence of God whatsoever. I brought up the immorality of the people involved in Hollywood. You decided to turn it into a witch hunt against God and mocked religion and religious believing people.
His claims weren't simply disputed....they were completely debunked. There's a difference. Things he claimed as facts in his book were debunked by people that were in the ER treating him. There is proof he had hallucinations...as many people in that state likely do. I don't need to prove god exist...the same way there is no need for me to prove the easter bunny does.
Factually wrong sir. I brought up god and religion when you mentioned the feminist movement excluding Christian women. And I simply explained how the mindset of feminist would clash with the mindset of most Christians.That happened on page 4 of this thread.
