Quote: "yeh your right ....it doesn't really matter .... "
.........

hehehe

Quote: "Yeah I know. Not on this board, not in this life. "
.........

'real' conversation?

Quote: "What shall we talk about?"
.........

"about" is "real conversation"? ;)

Quote: "hello leshish,
couldn't hear the laughter over the noise i was making listening,
was wondering why the smile,
on this crusty old head.
:-)"
.........

helloing bshish
could splashshing water on crustying
gasshsho
;)

Quote: "That's it. Let God do the talking. "
.........

But, why would the Flying Spaghetti Monster give us the gift of speech if neither he, nor his noodley offspring, want us to speak to each other? Maybe it's so we can pray and make ill people on the other side of the world more sick.

Ah, his noodley greatness works in mysterious ways does it not? 

 jjanin,

 You are!  Who else could be? (at least your entireity, is a part of God) i do not mean any particular God as is named and boxed up in any particular religion but the universe as a whole. But whats in a name anyway (just check out some of the posts here we all name much)

Supposing there were life on another planet, billions of light years away from us, and there is no reason to think this is impossible, would God talk to them?

Isn't it more than a little egocentric to think a God so powerful that he can create something as infinitely massive as the universe would bother to talk to us. Unless of course he didn't create the universe. If he didn't though, there doesn't seem to be much point in him at all.

What was he saying here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

It wouldn't be the first time this loving, caring God has punished the innocent just to make a point. Can't the miraculous one be a bit more discerning with his punishment? A lightning bolt might be more discriminating than a flood.

Well i wouldnt say the person is small in comparison to the universe. a person is a microuniverse compared to the macroverse. and i dont nessacarily dont believe in god johny. im saying...their is no evidance. its not the same. well see when we all die. and your wording and short phrases wont make me change my mind.

as far as their is no soul. let me repeat a message.

when i lived with my mother i had a out of body experience. i opened doors and everything. she was freaked out for days. i remember it vividly. furthermore..........i wasnt a believer in the soul. i fiqured we just went back to prebirth for eternity. now i do believe in the soul.

your a basketcase johny. i mean that in a good way though. hahaha.

ok let talk about god.

Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".^[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Augustine of Hippo,^[2] Al-Ghazali,^[3] and Maimonides.^[2] Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,^[4] attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes. Philosophers have developed several arguments for and against the existence of God.

Quote: "OM G? ?
Did it? Gave what away? What's on your minds? Step right up and get it off your breasts. You want to know what you had for breakfast? Just ask!"
.........

why would I ask ? I already know.

I called my father an omipresence once..in a story

Quote: "Who's worried? Your cat? Well, no because you don't have a cat. The cat has you. "
.........

whoa...I just did

Quote: "With the brains that God gave us, let us prove the existence of Fools. On second thoughts, forget about the us, let the brains do it.

Then, let us prove that 'mind' is the same for all sentient beings and that all sentient beings share the same laws of mind (physics), and further, that there is a universal awareness in this Mind and that therefore, this Mind fulfills all criteria for being everywhere at one and the same time in space (ie beyond the infinite), all knowing (yes knowsitall, lot, there is nothing it don't know), all powerful (and weak at the same time). "
.........

Quote: "I have no desire or need to 'prove the existence of God'. If I had that need it would be an irrational one.

Thinking rationally is necessary - there is nothing wrong, per se with 'rationally' - nothing wrong with thinking. But I do not subscribe to the view that: "When people start thinking rationally the world will be a better and safer place to live." To believe that is irrational.

Irrespective of how many times nuclear weapons have been used, I say that their presence in the world has not contributed to making the world a better and safer place to live.

I'm not particularly interested in the numbers game and wouldn't know how one would make the calculations in order to prove that "religion has killed more people than science". Religion or science - it's people who kill people.

I do not subscribe to the view that the world has been made a better and safer place for non-human animals because of the rational thinking of humans. The opposite is the case. To believe otherwise is irrational.

Religion won't 'save' you or the world and neither will science. To look to science for 'answers' is irrational.


"
.........

'if you want to do evil, science provides the most powerful weapons to do evil; but equally, if you want to do good, science puts into your hands the most powerful tools to do so. ' Richard Dawkins.

Quote: "and have a tongue that I can rest firmly in my cheesecake."
.........

hehe

frozen
grapes 

Quote: "Yes, that's right. That's the point of the 'us'. The amoeba, the fish;, the amhibians, et al: I am the metaphor. I am the fish. God doesn't work as your particular brain supposes - neither a cloudy emotion nor a rational proof. Nor is this God a person acting from an 'outside' to create and direct the world, tinkering away like a mechanic, or even as this cartoon character visiting hellfire and damnation on the unbeliever. Sorry, but that isn't it. It's possibly beyond your experience but even 'your' brain has no local existence of its own. "
.........

My brain exists locally inside my skull. I know because if it wasn't there my body would be a senseless, lifeless corpse.

I have 100 billion neurons, each synapsing with a thousand other neurons. These numbers are vast. I wonder what the point is in their local activity if they are merely there to facilitate some sort of higher collective consciousness? I also wonder why if I lost a few million, I would lose a vital function or two, that's if I didn't die of course.

If God isn't as he is depicted in the Bible or the Koran or the Torah then what is the ponit of those books exactly? And what's wrong with those Hindus and their preposterous polytheism? Don't they know there's only one God - and he's a jealous and vindictive one too. He sure taught those heathens the Romans a lesson when they murdered his son, or was it God himself, or are they both the same? And who's this Holy Spirit chap? I'm confused. Oh wait, that's the point isn't it?

"I have 100 billion neurons, each synapsing with a thousand other neurons. These numbers are vast. I wonder what the point is in their local activity if they are merely there to facilitate some sort of higher collective consciousness? I also wonder why if I lost a few million, I would lose a vital function or two, that's if I didn't die of course. "

To percieve...