seph ir oth
Mod'n Dat News Jon
- Reaction score
- 262
Lol you could say we are going ham on them.
Oh yeah and you just killed my sorry ass on playstation.Lol you could say we are going ham on them.
Fuck that, go 1x Life, hardcore mode. No respawn. gg
I was about to agree with you until I realized that you were defining "yolo"
No! They should "Not" fight with anyone...They should all be fighting the atheists, if they want to fight anyone. They're the real enemy.
He kept asking, "BUT HOW", "WHERE IT COME FROM!?", "WHAT IS BEYOND?!", I dont have those answers.. nobody does.. so he concluded there is a God who created the universe for us to live in, or well planet earth to live on, and once we're dead we'll go to heaven or hell, depending on wether we ate bacon or not.
Funny, all his reasons for believing in God are the same reasons I don't - because if you answer each of those questions with "God did it," or whatever fits, you can ask the exact same questions about God with just as little answer.
And... nothing? Seemed pretty straightforward. Just because I don't believe in God doesn't mean I'm attacking religion, quit taking offense at nothing. It's obnoxious.
Sorry, I meant no need to get defensive. It was more of a comment on how two people could be asking the same question and come up with completely opposing conclusions, and with such conviction.I'm not taking offense at it, it just wasn't very informative.
Don't fool yourself. There's nothing rational about putting answers to questions 'til you reach the conclusion you're trying to reach. There's nothing rational about forming opinions on subjects without substantial reasons. It's the realm where people delude themselves into thinking that there is or isn't a God and take that as fact for nothing beyond their own conjecture. It's good to consider the questions, but it's foolish to form beliefs off of those answers when they're unfounded.You basically stated THE most basic reasoning that bypasses any in-depth thought processes of making a rational determination of the plausibility or lack there of by taking an extremely simplified approach to a concept that can't be broken down like that.
You can ask the same questions about what made or didn't 'make' God, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll come to the same answer; the concept of what God is or could be is much more interpretative than you or I because the concept in itself could be directly applied to the universe (which we can ask the same questions about and come to the same answer), and it is much broader, more powerful, and less understood than the mere existence of life.