Prove that God doesn't exist.

Does God exist?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 63 59.4%
  • No.

    Votes: 44 41.5%

  • Total voters
    106
I'm not in the habit of believing everything the pope says -- only those that are logical.

Unfortunately for you, the pope's positions that you happily criticize happen to be the most logical things he had said.

Wait a second, Nums, on the Nicea thread you said that science is part of divine revelation, yet the Catholic Church has been foursquare against scientific discoveries like the heliocentric solar system, that transsexualism is a birth defect, that children should not have sex with priests, and that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality.

The bible wasn't meant to be read as a historical document. How many more times do I need to say this before you give yourself leave to understand, hmmm?
On the Nicea thread you said just the opposite, that the Salvation Story doesn't make sense without the historical part of the Bible to give it continuity. Here's your quote:
Originally Posted by numinus
The thing is, salvation HISTORY simply doesn't make sense if god's self-revelation abruptly stopped with the acts of the apostles 2000 yrs ago, does it? Nor would it make any sense if it were presented independent of the millieu in which it happened, would it?


Council of nicea, indeed!
Great idea, isn't it, we can restructure the Bible to remove all the violence attributed to God, we can take out all the crazy goat-herder myth and tradition, we install Jesus as the central figure of Christianity and have His teachings be the focus of Christian practive. Instead of the Ten Commandments we can have the Two Commandments that Jesus said were the most important ones in the Bible. Instead of quoting 'an eye for an eye' we can teach people to quote 'return good for evil' or 'pray for those who use you spitefully', it'll be a new day for Christianity with the contradictions taken out of the Bible.
 
Werbung:
As a matter of fact, I don't.

What I do know is that the hebrews during that time were incapable of separating religious imperatives with political necessities.

That is why I'm happy to be a christian rather than a jew. At least I don't need to justify the torah with my moral sensibilities.
So you are saying that the Old Testament is not really part of the Bible that has to be obeyed despite Matthew 5:17-19?

And you would rather my remark be about homosexual ass, wouldn't you? At least you can intellectually deal with what you percieve to be a homophobe.

What you cannot deal with is that I am not a homophobe, and that remark was about your MORAL RELATIVITY. Try dealing with that.
For a person who is not a homophobe you certainly talk derogatorally about homosexual males a lot. I'm not sure what moral relativity you refer to, my position has been and still is that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality. Any sexual activity between consenting adults that does not hurt others is (spreading disease or causing unwanted pregnancy) morally neutral.

A cursory google search brought this:

http://en.[B]wikipedia[/B].org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

Many transgender people do not regard their own cross-gender feelings and behaviors as a disorder. People within the transgender community often question what a "normal" gender identity or "normal" gender role is supposed to be. One argument is that gender characteristics are socially constructed[citation needed] and therefore naturally unrelated to biological sex.[citation needed] This perspective often notes that other cultures, particularly historical ones, valued gender roles that would presently suggest homosexuality or transsexuality as normal behavior.[5] Some people see "transgendering" as a means for deconstructing gender. However, not all transgender people wish to deconstruct gender or feel that they are doing so.

Other transgender people object to the classification of GID as a mental disorder on the grounds that there may be a physical cause, as suggested by recent studies about the brains of transsexual people. Many of them[who?] also point out that the treatment for this disorder consists primarily of physical modifications to bring the body into harmony with one's perception of mental (psychological, emotional) gender identity, rather than vice versa.[6]

Although evidence suggests that transgender behavior has a neurological basis, critics of GID denomination say there is no scientific consensus on whether the cause of transgenderism is mental or physical.[7]

In a landmark publication in December 2002, the British Lord Chancellor's office published a Government Policy Concerning Transsexual People document that categorically states "What transsexualism is not...It is not a mental illness."[8] In May 2009 the government of France has also declared that a transsexual gender identity is not a psychiatric condition in France. [9]

Some people[10] feel that the deletion of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-III and the ensuing creation of the GID diagnosis was merely sleight of hand by psychiatrists, who changed the focus of the diagnosis from the deviant desire (of the same sex) to the subversive identity (or the belief/desire for membership of the opposite sex/gender).[11] People who believe this tend to point out that the same idea is found in both diagnoses, that the patient is not a "normal" male or female. As Kelley Winters (pen-name Katharine Wilson), an advocate for GID reform put it, "Behaviors that would be ordinary or even exemplary for gender-conforming boys and girls are presented as symptomatic of mental disorder for gender nonconforming children."[7] However, Zucker and Spitzer[12] argue that GID was included in the DSM-III (7 years after homosexuality was removed from the DSM-II) because it "met the generally accepted criteria used by the framers of DSM-III for inclusion".

The GID controversy figured prominently at the 2009 meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco, both in presentations in the meeting and in protests outside the meeting; protesters focused on the attitude of the psychiatric community and tried to make the point that GID is not a mental disorder, as well focusing on the role of Kenneth Zucker in leading the DSM-V Task Force on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders.[13]

Notice how your opinions about homosexuality and transgender flip-flop from one side of the controversy to the other?

If you really want to discuss this more thoroughly, you should create a new thread, though -- rather than ranting catholic this, catholic that, to whatever angry and hateful feelings you are currently experiencing.

You defeat your own argument by quoting Wiki. This is not a credible source, anyone can go in there and add things that suit them. I note that you reference political viewpoints as well and that's hardly a reliable source either. If you want real sources I could supply them to you, but I know from long experience that most people won't even look at the sources I present due partly to the scientific nature of them or the length and complexity of the subject.

A one minute search of Wiki is not a basis from which to argue this with me. I AM one of those people, I've been studying it and living with it for a large portion of my life. I bet that this is one scientific subject that you will deny is "divine revelation", won't you?
 
She has a masters in psychology -- well, not exactly -- she needs to do her thesis, which I don't think she has the time, patience or inclination for presently.

She's got a year's worth of field study on homosexuality. She'll probably hand back your ass, along with all your psychological claptrap.

I was refering to the Huge number of hetero males who find lesbian sex erotic. Do you think that one year of studying homosexuality gives your wife the necessary ammunition to discuss transsexualism with me?

I notice a lot of references to "ass" in your posts. Do you have some kind of ass fixation? You're an "ass" man, aren't you? Hey, as long as your wife is okay with it, then you'll get no grief from me about it.
 
Quite right. You have all the freedom in america, even the freedom to be utterly ignorant.

Duh?

The "Duh" makes you appear to be about 12.

And the only way I could be ignorant is if rational thinking, freedom of thought and scientific evaluation is ignorant and believing in fairy tales is not.

Every single thing you promote as "God" I can replace with the word "aliens" and it holds EXACTLY the same amount of weight... none.::rolleyes:


What calcified ignorance you must have! Even when you are being taught what agnosticism really is, you still resist.

A piece of advice -- before you go in the public domain claiming you're an agnostic, make sure you know exactly what that position means, hmmm.

Duh?

Well my Duh laddie... I know EXACTLY what agnostic means. It means the willingness to accept the "possibility" of a God but not seeing any proof at this time.

Yep. Thats what preponderanc means. And if you have perused any of the scientific papers published recently, very few are supported by a 'preponderance of evidence'.

Duh?

Science is not in agreement with the claims made by man made religious fairy tales. They look upon your position as an adult looks onto a child's belief in Santa Claus not understanding that reindeer really can't fly and one person really can't deliver gifts to children all around the world in one night.

The feeling associated when one is hit by a bus is an ENTIRELY sensory experience, hence ENTIRE SUBJECTIVE.

You do not even have the common sense to extract that simple point in that simple example.

Agnostic, indeed!

Unfortunately you appear to not have the ability to gain any knowledge from actual events, testing and research. Yours is the world of ghosts and goblins not reality my friend.

Seeing that you are criticizing the kindergarten version of christianity in an otherwise adult discussion, I can see how that quote applies to you.

Duh?

Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.
Abraham Lincoln;)
 
Wait a second, Nums, on the Nicea thread you said that science is part of divine revelation,

That is correct.

That is why the sciences have been a mainstay of most catholic-run colleges and universities around the world. I remember giving you a list of jesuit-run educational institutions.

That is also why the vatican maintains an astronomic observatory in, if I remember correctly, castle gandolfo.

Oh, and science is intrinsically discussed in humanae vitae -- if you have bothered to read it.

yet the Catholic Church has been foursquare against scientific discoveries like the heliocentric solar system, that transsexualism is a birth defect, that children should not have sex with priests, and that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality.

Haven't you heard?

The church is honoring gallileo in the year of astronomy. Certainly long overdue, but that, along with the millenium apology should put an end to all your rants.

As for the other things, the church would do well to distance itself from psuedo-scientific nonsense.

On the Nicea thread you said just the opposite, that the Salvation Story doesn't make sense without the historical part of the Bible to give it continuity. Here's your quote:
Originally Posted by numinus
The thing is, salvation HISTORY simply doesn't make sense if god's self-revelation abruptly stopped with the acts of the apostles 2000 yrs ago, does it? Nor would it make any sense if it were presented independent of the millieu in which it happened, would it?

Nonsense.

It is the BACKGROUND in which god's self-revelation is supposed to be taking place. Historical accuracy isn't the point -- although some of accounts in the bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

I simply cannot understand why you insist on going along this idiotic vein. Tell me, does exodus make any sense without hebrew slavery in egypt more than 3000 years ago????

And yet the point of exodus wasn't about the existence of slavery in egypt then, was it?

Great idea, isn't it, we can restructure the Bible to remove all the violence attributed to God, we can take out all the crazy goat-herder myth and tradition, we install Jesus as the central figure of Christianity and have His teachings be the focus of Christian practive. Instead of the Ten Commandments we can have the Two Commandments that Jesus said were the most important ones in the Bible. Instead of quoting 'an eye for an eye' we can teach people to quote 'return good for evil' or 'pray for those who use you spitefully', it'll be a new day for Christianity with the contradictions taken out of the Bible.

I don't even know where to begin to correct all your nonsense.

There already was an ecumenical council as late as the 1960's -- the vatican 2. In this council, the importance of the bible, as it is published today, was REAFFIRMED. The ecumenical council also said something for you -- that there is a need for some modern re-interpretation of scripture. We need not use your moronic take on it.

Honestly, you are prancing from one erroneous point to the next. That is why you cannot seem to grasp the millenium apology and all the things that has since happened in the church which you happily find fault in, both good and bad.

You try to present yourself as a liberal modern thinker and yet you cannot get past certain ideas already explained as early as 400 AD in civitas dei -- one of the most definitive theological and socio-political works of the church.
 
So you are saying that the Old Testament is not really part of the Bible that has to be obeyed despite Matthew 5:17-19?

Eh?

It is part of the bible. However, not all mosaic law is part of canon law.

Is it really that difficult for you to grasp this?

For a person who is not a homophobe you certainly talk derogatorally about homosexual males a lot.

Nonsense.

I talk the same about all morons -- regardless of sexual orientation.

I'm not sure what moral relativity you refer to, my position has been and still is that homosexuality is a normal variation in human sexuality.

Which DOES NOT accrue to a moral good.

Any sexual activity between consenting adults that does not hurt others is (spreading disease or causing unwanted pregnancy) morally neutral.

What the hell is that supposed to mean -- morally neutral????

Morality is a human RESPONSE to a categorical imperative. Either you respond to the imperative or not.

Is the buddhist or ascetic christians' decision to withdraw from the world morally correct from a christian theological point of view? Certainly not -- since withdrawal, in itself, is a failure to respond.

Is the mosaic imperative 'thou shall not kill' the same as the chrisitan imperative 'love thy neighbor'? Certainly not since the former is devoid of the dimension of love.

Get your act together, for the love of god!

You defeat your own argument by quoting Wiki. This is not a credible source, anyone can go in there and add things that suit them. I note that you reference political viewpoints as well and that's hardly a reliable source either. If you want real sources I could supply them to you, but I know from long experience that most people won't even look at the sources I present due partly to the scientific nature of them or the length and complexity of the subject.

A one minute search of Wiki is not a basis from which to argue this with me. I AM one of those people, I've been studying it and living with it for a large portion of my life. I bet that this is one scientific subject that you will deny is "divine revelation", won't you?

Nonsense.

The point of the article is simply to demonstrate that what you think is hard science, DOES NOT, in fact, enjoy academic consensus. What you are blatantly doing is trying to lend scientific impetus to what is clearly only your opinion.

Haven't you noticed that in the face of logical rigor, you are reduced to offering nonsense rhetoric? That is how flimsy your argument truly is.
 
I was refering to the Huge number of hetero males who find lesbian sex erotic.

Whether I find lesbian sex erotic or not is irrelevant. How do you suppose, in all honesty, could I criticize lesbians when I have been arguing, for the longest time, for a WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD, hmmm?

Even now, you don't seem to grasp even the most rudimentary concepts of what I'm saying.

Do you think that one year of studying homosexuality gives your wife the necessary ammunition to discuss transsexualism with me?

Certainly.

Its 4 years of undergraduate psychology and another 3 and 1/2 years of post-grad in counselling -- all in an ACADEMIC SETTING, meaning none of your politically-correct nonsense.

She told me to tell you you're amusing, and that she would forgo the pleasure of putting you in your place. She has other, more pressing things on her mind.

I notice a lot of references to "ass" in your posts. Do you have some kind of ass fixation? You're an "ass" man, aren't you? Hey, as long as your wife is okay with it, then you'll get no grief from me about it.

LOL.

You don't see that in american pop-culture -- all that reference to 'ass'?
 
Its 4 years of undergraduate psychology and another 3 and 1/2 years of post-grad in counselling -- all in an ACADEMIC SETTING, meaning none of your politically-correct nonsense.

All of that education, and yet you still write posts that call more attention to their convoluted grammar than to their content.

Maybe the people telling us that the educational system is failing are correct after all.

Or, just maybe, some of the assertions made on this forum are not wholly based in reality.


You don't see that in american pop-culture -- all that reference to 'ass'?

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the point I wanted to make.
 
The "Duh" makes you appear to be about 12.

And the only way I could be ignorant is if rational thinking, freedom of thought and scientific evaluation is ignorant and believing in fairy tales is not.

Every single thing you promote as "God" I can replace with the word "aliens" and it holds EXACTLY the same amount of weight... none.::rolleyes:

You call that scientific???? What unbelieveable cheek!

The subject at hand is SPACE-TIME geometry in COSMOLOGICAL SCALES and all you can imagine is 'aliens'.

And I'm the one who's supposed to be twelve, eh?

[Well my Duh laddie... I know EXACTLY what agnostic means. It means the willingness to accept the "possibility" of a God but not seeing any proof at this time.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.

Tell me einstein, how are you supposed to make yourself 'accept the possibility' of something that is unknown or unknowable, hmmm?

Clearly, there must be a ban on ignoramuses in this forum.

Duh?

[Science is not in agreement with the claims made by man made religious fairy tales. They look upon your position as an adult looks onto a child's belief in Santa Claus not understanding that reindeer really can't fly and one person really can't deliver gifts to children all around the world in one night.

Wrong.

Science has no competence to render any opinion about the metaphysical, simply because it is outside its field of inquiry.

Duh?

[Unfortunately you appear to not have the ability to gain any knowledge from actual events, testing and research. Yours is the world of ghosts and goblins not reality my friend.

Wrong.

No amount of research will make you feel the experience of being hit by a bus -- except being hit by a bus yourself.

Duh?

[Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.
Abraham Lincoln;)

Only an idiot could be so wrong all the time and still fail to feel embarassment.
 
All of that education, and yet you still write posts that call more attention to their convoluted grammar than to their content.

Sorry. I was talking about my wife. I only have an undergraduate degree.

Although, how one's command of a foreign language is indicative of one's education is beyond me.

Maybe the people telling us that the educational system is failing are correct after all.

Got that right.

Or, just maybe, some of the assertions made on this forum are not wholly based in reality.

What other reality is there outside facts and logic, hmmm?

Thank you for providing a perfect example of the point I wanted to make.

I'm not sure what example you had in mind but I always aim to be of service.
 
Before I forget I want to thank you for all the personal slights, digs, and insolent inferences, they really add flavor to your posts.

That is correct. That is why the sciences have been a mainstay of most catholic-run colleges and universities around the world. I remember giving you a list of jesuit-run educational institutions.

That is also why the vatican maintains an astronomic observatory in, if I remember correctly, castle gandolfo.

Oh, and science is intrinsically discussed in humanae vitae -- if you have bothered to read it.

Haven't you heard?

The church is honoring gallileo in the year of astronomy. Certainly long overdue, but that, along with the millenium apology should put an end to all your rants.
As for the other things, the church would do well to distance itself from psuedo-scientific nonsense.
So we can expect to wait another 1000 years before the Church catches up to the science of today and apologizes for the millions of homosexual people who lost their lives because of eclesiastical inertia? You are an excellent example of this inertia, showing as you have a complete reluctance/inability to learn--in fact you haven't yet even been willing to look at the science.

Nonsense.
It is the BACKGROUND in which god's self-revelation is supposed to be taking place. Historical accuracy isn't the point -- although some of accounts in the bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

I simply cannot understand why you insist on going along this idiotic vein. Tell me, does exodus make any sense without hebrew slavery in egypt more than 3000 years ago????
And yet the point of exodus wasn't about the existence of slavery in egypt then, was it?
We are talking about two distinctly different things, but somehow that fact keeps sneaking by you. Do you even read my posts? Try to focus here, Nums: Can you see any difference between GOD SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY TO BUY AND SELL AND BEAT SLAVES and the simple historical fact that PEOPLE BOUGHT AND SOLD AND BEAT SLAVES?

The historical part doesn't bother me, it's an historical account. The part where God gives permission to buy, sell, and beat slaves to death is the part that should be removed from the Bible. Along with the parts where God said that it was okay to buy and sell children.

If those parts were taken out of the Bible then the historical account would still be there but the rug would pulled out from under the people who even today use the Bible to prove that God said it was okay to own slaves and sell children.

I don't even know where to begin to correct all your nonsense.

There already was an ecumenical council as late as the 1960's -- the vatican 2. In this council, the importance of the bible, as it is published today, was REAFFIRMED. The ecumenical council also said something for you -- that there is a need for some modern re-interpretation of scripture. We need not use your moronic take on it.

Honestly, you are prancing from one erroneous point to the next. That is why you cannot seem to grasp the millenium apology and all the things that has since happened in the church which you happily find fault in, both good and bad.

You try to present yourself as a liberal modern thinker and yet you cannot get past certain ideas already explained as early as 400 AD in civitas dei -- one of the most definitive theological and socio-political works of the church.
So, they admit that the Bible needs cleaning up, but 40 years later they still haven't done anything about it. How many more centuries will we have to live with the blasphemy heaped on God by the Bible, the blasphemy that it was God who ordered slavery, selling of children, rape, genocide, taking virgins as spoils of war, and all the rest? We can leave all those pleasant things in the Bible, but we really need to remove the lies that say God gave us permission to do those things.
 
Before I forget I want to thank you for all the personal slights, digs, and insolent inferences, they really add flavor to your posts.

I should thank you, since you've given as much, if not more, than what you received.

So we can expect to wait another 1000 years before the Church catches up to the science of today and apologizes for the millions of homosexual people who lost their lives because of eclesiastical inertia? You are an excellent example of this inertia, showing as you have a complete reluctance/inability to learn--in fact you haven't yet even been willing to look at the science.

I'm afraid you could wait till hell freezes over and still, homosexuality will no more accrue to a moral good than lazily watching tv.

We are talking about two distinctly different things, but somehow that fact keeps sneaking by you. Do you even read my posts? Try to focus here, Nums: Can you see any difference between GOD SAYING THAT IT'S OKAY TO BUY AND SELL AND BEAT SLAVES and the simple historical fact that PEOPLE BOUGHT AND SOLD AND BEAT SLAVES?

Why don't you try to focus for a change and accept the fact that the books of the bible were written by PEOPLE trying to convey a MESSAGE, directed at a particular AUDIENCE, in the best way they know how.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me god said that slavery is ok, as opposed to people saying slavery is ok given the particular political dynamics and social millieu they were writing in?

I have as much to say about your ignorant interpretation of the ot as the ignorant interpretation of some fundamentalist christians of, say, revelations.

The historical part doesn't bother me, it's an historical account. The part where God gives permission to buy, sell, and beat slaves to death is the part that should be removed from the Bible. Along with the parts where God said that it was okay to buy and sell children.

I think you have just crossed the line of idiocy!

It is not enough for you that jesus said, love your neighbors as yourself, eh? You need to refashion the entire history that culminates to that particular statement in that particular event?

Tell me, what makes you think that the people who do not 'love their neighbors as themselves' -- one of the central commandments of the christian faith -- will do so if you edited the ot, of all things?

Its like saying that the people who are not faithful to their wives (against the pope's moral teaching) would simply fasten condoms if the same pope said so.

The church becomes party to an academic travesty (the extent of its consequences one simply cannot fathom) while achieveing absolutely NOTHING.

If those parts were taken out of the Bible then the historical account would still be there but the rug would pulled out from under the people who even today use the Bible to prove that God said it was okay to own slaves and sell children.

Now you are saying that the people who own slaves and sell children today use the bible to justify it, eh?

And if such ignorant people exist today, you would believe that the justification is indeed in the bible, eh?

So, they admit that the Bible needs cleaning up, but 40 years later they still haven't done anything about it. How many more centuries will we have to live with the blasphemy heaped on God by the Bible, the blasphemy that it was God who ordered slavery, selling of children, rape, genocide, taking virgins as spoils of war, and all the rest? We can leave all those pleasant things in the Bible, but we really need to remove the lies that say God gave us permission to do those things.

Nonsense.

Lots of changes happened in the catholic church since vatican 2. One of the most important, in my opinion, is the conciliatory stance it has started to adopt in matters involving just about every aspect of civilized society. For someone claiming infallibility in moral matters, that is a huge step, indeed. The fact is, the church has gone out of its way explaining the logic in its teachings, (as if rationality itself needs to be justified ad nauseum) and has subjected itself to every individual's personal judgement and scrutiny.

These are not the actions of a tyrant -- something you unjustly paint the church to be.
 
Werbung:
You call that scientific???? What unbelieveable cheek!

The subject at hand is SPACE-TIME geometry in COSMOLOGICAL SCALES and all you can imagine is 'aliens'.

And I'm the one who's supposed to be twelve, eh?

The subject at hand is "Prove God doesn't exist". This is a weak attempt to try and make someone prove a negative because one cannot prove something in the first place.

Face it your whole fantasy is 100% unprovable. It is a story without any scientific backing whatsoever. In fact much Biblical documentation is actually easily contradicted and/or disproven by modern scientific knowledge.

As far as your age... I don't know how old you are. But your argument from a proof standpoint is adolescent at best.


Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.

Exactly what I said just using a lot more words. Open to the idea but have seen no proof at all of it's existence. I'm not like primitive man that ran to the unprovable mystical super natural to explain things. So until at least a shred of evidence is provided I'm comfortable saying there's nothing to base a religious belief in... hence I don't believe in it.

Tell me einstein, how are you supposed to make yourself 'accept the possibility' of something that is unknown or unknowable, hmmm?

Clearly, there must be a ban on ignoramuses in this forum.

Duh?

I just answered that...

and I'd be careful with the personal attacks... it is you with the vocabulary of "Duh".:rolleyes:


Wrong.

Science has no competence to render any opinion about the metaphysical, simply because it is outside its field of inquiry.

Duh?

One goes with the best evidence that one can obtain. You on the other hand have no, zero, notta bit, of evidence. You have an Aesop's Fable. If we take science out of the equation we might as well all believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and Peter Pan.


Wrong.

No amount of research will make you feel the experience of being hit by a bus -- except being hit by a bus yourself.

Duh?

It's amazing that you're really having this much trouble making this simple connection.:rolleyes:

The research is in the documenting the testimony of a person who lives after being hit by a bus relating his own experience & pain. In fact we could even start at a smaller event say being ran into by a bicycle and then extrapolate the increased size, weight, speed etc. of a larger object such as a car or bus and draw accurate scientific conclusions.

This isn't the Da Vinci Code my friend. You really should be able to connect the dots. But again I go back to the possible age factor.


Only an idiot could be so wrong all the time and still fail to feel embarassment.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Abraham Lincoln
;)
 
Back
Top