SergeantLynch

Yep, I was running with that until you mentioned Heaven.

Hmmmm

A tad conspiracy theory, a tad wishful thinking and a tad burying ones head in the sand.

An infinitely available "organic" product that was/is produced from what.

So you also think that continually burning this infinitely available organic resource does not have profound effects upon climate and ecosystems and the scientists who suggest that it does are also a flawed thinkers?...Silly question really.

Though if it is known by the deceivers to be an infinitely available and harmless natural organic resource, then what is the purpose of the deception?

Which is a bit like asking a flat earther, what is the purpose of deceiving people into thinking that the Earth is spherical if it is actually flat.

Knowledge comes with experience.

Who officiated?

Though that was way too early for the Anglicised book which was named "The Bible".

50% what?

A structure was constructed thousands of years ago, whereas a new structure was constructed from reclaimed material on the same site.

If I were to knock my house down and reconstruct a new house using the same material, would it be the same house?

Not that I'm particularly worried about a reconstructed pile of stones that is popular with tourists and pseudo Druids.

Nonetheless the first "Bible" was a book that was compiled somewhere between 500 and a 1000 years ago. Which depending upon how picky one wants to be, might be referred to as several hundred years ago.

Not to mention all those EV's.

Though do you think that oil and gas will last forever?

And nuclear is only very temporarily efficient, costing billions to install, billions to decommission, and producing a dangerous waste product that we hide in caves.

I do think it wise to look at other alternatives. The Sun being an unlimited source of energy. OK so not actually unlimited, but when it goes we go with it.

Are Donald's balls that large?

Enjoy Paris.

BK type word play.

The adaptation of older texts named and known as "The Bible", was an Anglican compilation and did not exist as such, prior to it's compilation and naming. Which isn't to say that older adaptations were not produced.

Stonehenge was an Anglified name applied to an ancient monument. Bad example though, because the monument was actually reworked and reconstructed in the 1950's. So, the basic structure did exist prior to these events and therefore did exist prior to it's English naming, but not necessarily exactly as we see it now. Stonehenge as we see it now, is only about 70 years old.

Sort of probably, perhaps, maybe, not that sure, but I suppose could be or might not, or may not even, but on the other hand might be.

Though neither certain or uncertain but definitely don't know for sure either way.

Well, if you're being picky then "Bible" is a Middle English word and therefore between 520 and 960 years old.

And several hundred would be more than two hundred and less than a thousand.

So "The Bible was compiled several hundred years ago", is demonstrably good enough for me.

Will it come with fries.

Well one could say that some form of theistic idea has been around for many thousands of years, or maybe even millions of years, and that said idea has been evolving ever since.

One would also suggest that a MANGOD was the most logical idea for man to favour. Which is certainly not to say that there are/were no other animal deities.

And 2500 years or so ago, people started jotting down the ideas that preceded your popular, more modern Abrahamic compilations.

All in accordance with the evolution of intellect, science, literature and written records.

Nope, I've never had that thought come to mind.

Probably, indicates the uncertainty or likelihood of an indefinite thought or proposition, and yes and no are alternative outcome choices relative to said uncertain or indefinite thought or proposition.

That is true Poly.

And I like to think that there is a purpose to everything, even if it just means that everything is it's own purpose.

I refer to it as a GOD principle.

That is true.

KJV first published in 1611.

There was other stuff.

One lives and dies with no idea of what constitutes 5 years more or 5 years less.

And longevity can be attributed in part to many lifestyle factors, atheism per se not logically being one of them. Though the support of any empathetic community could undoubtedly make a difference.

Then there are genetics and good old fashioned luck.

My Brother in Law Died at the age of 60 after suffering a painful demise from myeloma, which was also what attributed to his fathers death. This was fuck all to do with religion.

And did you know that Africa, the most religious continent, has the highest rate of road traffic related deaths and also the lowest overall life expectancy.

Therefore logical reasoning could lead to the conclusion that GOD must be racist...But on the other hand, it could just be the way things are.

And jibes that refer to my knowledge of words and definition are the lowest form of argument.

Have a nice day BK and don't forget to get out of bed and feed the hens.

Yep, I get notifications and visit Dart occasionally. 49 pages of random thinking, so best try and make it 50.

Actually the new thread might as well start here and we can attribute it to Skipper.

So I randomly think that this should be the new random thoughts thread...Thanks Skip.

I see Dart as an abandoned mothership floating in outer-space emitting ghostly bangs and creaks. I think that Shila still hangs out there and I've also spotted traces of Barney.

Could become a refuge for anyone that gets banned from this Craft.

Leaning is the person you want.

It would be less logical to suggest the opposite.

And all life outcomes are the same. Every million in a million die and statistically that's a 100%.

There is no distinction to be made between theists and atheists.

Humans have the ability to be simultaneously clever and stupid.

I'm guessing it's a genetic thing.

It can even outperform normal vision.

Please explain.

Word games BK.

Word games neither prove anything, nor inform us of anything.

Bottom line is, a magical deity might or might not exist.

But as no one has ever seen a magical deity, then there probably is no such thing.

Structural functionalism is a good one.

And then there's abstract meta-fabricationalism, it's a beauty.

Not to mention deconstructive hyper-materialistic deconsructionalism, don't mess with this one unless you have a big beard and failed at sciences.

All ice and no coke.

Though the coke is probably just syrup and fizzy water.

And the fries are reconstituted potato mixed with 18 other ingredients.

The cheeseburger is a reasonably nutritious treat to have every now and then.

Though, it is not advisable to regularly consume processed meat products.

Forum threads communicate thoughts from varying perspectives...Which as I see it, is always the point.

I sometimes like to utilise a satirical perspective rather than a purely literal one.

And sometimes it's nice just to light heartedly chat about stuff.

Hmmmmm.

I'm not sure that a thoughtfully composed honest reply constitutes a rant...But whatever.

And religion is something that I tend to discuss in forums like this, rather than with friends or colleagues.

And basically theism and atheism are both states of mind relative to the same creation and existence hypotheses.

Though from my point of view, hypotheses remain hypotheses until they can be unequivocally verified.

To assume that magical deities must exist without actual proof, is sort of jumping the gun.

So then BK, give me a free introduction to a real GOD and we can take it from there.

GOD tales are rarely fluffy puppy dogs and kittens.

Usually a whole lot of wrath, condemnation and slaying.

Remy says that the Left will claim it's wrong to call people "retarted".

I'm wondering whether they meant a jam tart, a treacle tart or a First Lady.

A Bakewell tart is also very nice, named for the town of Bakewell, Derbyshire, England.

I'm assuming that a "retart" is a second helping...Which is why the RIght have a downer on obesity.

And I'm assuming that you would like a helping or two of the First Lady.