Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

This one is better

 

 

kiss someone's ass

 

 

Contents   [hide] 

• 1 English
  • 1.1 Etymology
  • 1.2 Verb
    • 1.2.1 Related terms
    • 1.2.2 Translations
    • 1.2.3 See also

English [edit] Etymology [edit]

Said because the ass is considered vulgar and someone willing to kiss another's is considered a sign of submission and patronage.

[midniterider]

Are you guys still having fun with this Jewish Thumbelina? Let me know.

I wish we had a rabid Scientologist also.

[Guest nat]

Because i disagree i am rabid?

 

If any of you atheists went into a religious forum, they would gang up on you as well and say bad things about you.

 

Do you take juvenile comfort is your little cave?

 

I see things from both sides. I see the bashing of atheists from the religious side, and I see the religious bashing here. No wonder they bash you. 

 

I am open minded. I said nice things to athiests as long as they were civil.

 

I am the rabid one?

 

I called for a truce to all the bashing.

 

I am the rabid one?

 

Such blind stupidity and hatred.

 

Take comfort in your cave small minded ones. 

[florduh]

Like a Thumbelina with balls. Well, one ball, anyway.

[sdelsolray]

Because i disagree i am rabid?

 

If any of you atheists went into a religious forum, they would gang up on you as well and say bad things about you.

 

Do you take juvenile comfort is your little cave?

 

I see things from both sides. I see the bashing of atheists from the religious side, and I see the religious bashing here. No wonder they bash you. 

 

I am open minded. I said nice things to athiests as long as they were civil.

 

I am the rabid one?

 

I called for a truce to all the bashing.

 

I am the rabid one?

 

Such blind stupidity and hatred.

 

Take comfort in your cave small minded ones. 

Me, me, me.

 

Tell us how important you are.

[ContraBardus]

Like a Thumbelina with balls. Well, one ball, anyway.

 

We aren't sure if there is one ball, infinite balls, or absolute zero balls. If x /infinity + 0 = balls² Therefore infinite balls are eternal. So it is obvious that (6*9) = 42, and therefore pubes / sack = Balls². So clearly infinite balls exist, but only x must be 0 or 2 are shared between the infinite source and OP. So, it is proven that one of them has balls², and the other has eternal nothingness. It is unclear which is which, but I'm sure the Torah has a passage that can show which one has eternal balls and which has absolute nothingness because it's clearly written that negative balls are predicted by a passage about men and facial hair which is clearly an allusion to pubic hair and therefore balls.

 

Ha! You guys are all wrong, I didn't say nothingness, I said infinite sack. You can't prove that I said infinite nothingness, that's just silly and I'd never say that. I'm not wrong, I just said exactly what I meant, but wasn't clear about it and said it wrongly because I was right anyway and said it wrong despite being correct and adjusting my argument to fit the flow of the thread and further explain why I'm totally right about all of it and was to begin with. You can't prove I wasn't. Though I am sure it's infinite nothingness in relation to balls² * infinity, which is completely the same thing I said before earlier.

 

Here, This proves that I'm right and that I said what I'm saying I said now to begin with.

 

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

 

Take that, you all got PWND by my logic and awesome math skills, and I'm totally right. There's nothing you can say to argue against that. Seriously, shut the hell up. Nothing. I mean it.

 

Argue against this incredibly logical proof!

 

 

Old Spice Body Wash, so POWERFUL it sells itself in unrelated threads! POOOWWWWEEERRRRRRR!!!

 

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

Contra, I appreciate your feedback.

 

As we are getting off track from the purpose of this thread, I'll keep my response brief, and if anyone is interested to pursue this particular subject further, I can start a new thread in the theology section.

 

Unlike 'Lord of the Rings', the NT is a collection of stories based on real nations and historical events. It requires some delving to appreciate and understand what is going on in this particular story of the gentile woman. I've found this brief article that beautifully explains what is really going on in the story. Please check it out, so you will see the 'whole picture'.

 

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/even-dogs-eat-crumbs-jesus-and-syro.html

It was an interesting article, but I stand by my original statements.

 

Let me add this though, the book 'North and South' also takes place in a real nation during real historical events, it uses real historical figures who really lived during that time, but it's also a work of complete fiction. None of it actually ever really happened outside of the broader historical background present in the book. The fact that this or any other Bible story 'took place' during historical events and is set in a real place does not make it any more factual. It's still a book of mystical stories that probably never actually happened.

 

You could say the same thing about the story of Robin Hood. Real place, real events as a backdrop, even real people, but the story is complete fiction. There is little if any actual fact in it at all, and it's folklore. The Bible is Middle Eastern Folklore, and I still say that there is nothing 'beautiful' about that story. In all likelyhood it never really happened.

 

I see no reason to think that Jesus of the Bible is any more factual than Robin Hood. Both may or may not have been based on real people who actually lived, but the stories surrounding them are complete fabrications. They have been so bastardized by time, and a constant oral retelling, that they bear little to no resemblance to who those people likely really were at all. They have become legends, folklore and tall tales with no real historical basis any longer. Whoever [if anyone] inspired their characters has been so buried by their own legend that they are lost to the winds of time.

 

I see no reason to think that any of the stories in the NT have any more than the vaguest of similarity to reality at all, and that's being generous. It's entirely possible that neither Jesus, nor Robin Hood were based on anyone at all and were completely made up, or they may even be composite characters that use several different people as their source material.

 

That being said, I still think it's a horribly written moral tale. It's out of place for Jesus to behave that way, even to teach a lesson to his merry band of twelve. It doesn't fit with his character well, and is just a poorly executed fable. I read the article, and I still say it's trying to make a pile of chocolate out of a pile of shit. Giving excuses and attempting to over explain away the problems with it by jumping through hoops.

 

I just don't think it's a relevant story, and it certainly has no actual bearing on the reality of how Christians or Jews treated women a the time. Like I said, it probably never actually happened to begin with. The Bible is not a history book, and I see no reason to think that either the OT or the NT are an accurate account of anything that ever really happened. It's not relevant evidence that Christians were better about how they treated women than anyone else.

 

Where I do not find the Torah, or the NT to be actual accounts of anything, the Talmud does actually have some basis as historically grounded commentary. The authors of it have evidence that they existed, there is evidence they actually did write the passages themselves [the OT and NT are completely uncredited second hand accounts and/or credit of authorship is attributed by 'tradition' rather than evidence], contemporary accounts support a lot of what is written in it and who was writing it, and a lot of the Talmud is commentary on actual social structure, history, and real people who have plenty of evidence to support their existence and behaviors, and that the Jewish laws were enforced as well as what those laws were in any given period in Jewish history. It is largely made up of first hand accounts, unlike the Bible and the Torah which are second hand at best, and in all honesty, they are more than likely further removed accounts than that. Yes, the Talmud does have a whole, whole lot of commentary on their magic book 'the Torah' but it also gives a glimpse into Jewish life, laws, and social structure in ways that can be credibly backed as accurate.

 

I can believe that a good majority of the people who contributed to the Talmud existed for the same reasons I can believe that Cesar or Mark Antony existed. They all have similar evidence that they were real people.

 

Jesus and Moses do not have any such evidence. I see no reason to think they are anything but folklore, perhaps loosely based on some real people, but any truth or detail about them as real people has been forever lost and destroyed by their own legend and myth.

Let me add to your post, I hope you wont mind. If the accounts of the bible is based on real verifiable evidence, like overwhelming external sources and testable data. Then christians would not need faith in the first place, we would all be christians because of facts.

 

The fact that the christians play the faith card would suggest that they have nothing objective to claim and there beliefs in the bible is completly subjective.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

Like a Thumbelina with balls. Well, one ball, anyway.

We aren't sure if there is one ball, infinite balls, or absolute zero balls. If x /infinity + 0 = balls² Therefore infinite balls are eternal. So it is obvious that (6*9) = 42, and therefore pubes / sack = Balls². So clearly infinite balls exist, but only x must be 0 or 2 are shared between the infinite source and OP. So, it is proven that one of them has balls², and the other has eternal nothingness. It is unclear which is which, but I'm sure the Torah has a passage that can show which one has eternal balls and which has absolute nothingness because it's clearly written that negative balls are predicted by a passage about men and facial hair which is clearly an allusion to pubic hair and therefore balls.

 

Ha! You guys are all wrong, I didn't say nothingness, I said infinite sack. You can't prove that I said infinite nothingness, that's just silly and I'd never say that. I'm not wrong, I just said exactly what I meant, but wasn't clear about it and said it wrongly because I was right anyway and said it wrong despite being correct and adjusting my argument to fit the flow of the thread and further explain why I'm totally right about all of it and was to begin with. You can't prove I wasn't. Though I am sure it's infinite nothingness in relation to balls² * infinity, which is completely the same thing I said before earlier.

 

Here, This proves that I'm right and that I said what I'm saying I said now to begin with.

 

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

 

Take that, you all got PWND by my logic and awesome math skills, and I'm totally right. There's noting you can say to argue against that. Seriously, shut the hell up. Nothing. I mean it.

 

Argue against this incredibly logical proof!

 

 

Old Spice Body Wash, so POWERFUL it sells itself in unrelated threads! POOOWWWWEEERRRRRRR!!!

 

Ah my grasshopper, A balllessness in the hand is worth infinity of balls in the bush.

[ContraBardus]

Ah my grasshopper, A balllessness in the hand is worth infinity of balls in the bush.

 

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure that balls are the one time that something is worth more in the bush than they are in the hand.

 

[midniterider]

I heard Moses had a burning bush.

[Bhim]

If any of you atheists went into a religious forum, they would gang up on you as well and say bad things about you.

Heh, you think atheists have a hard time with evangelicals?  At least the atheist is a known enemy.  Me, on the other hand, they'd label a polytheist and burn at the stake.  Which here in America means I'd be forced to participate in prayers to the false god Jesus.

 

Since you're a Jew, the evangelicals will of course condemn you to hell.  But at least they'll count you as part of the proud Judeo-Christian tradition (only the latter half of which is going to heaven).

[midniterider]

 

 

 

I am open minded. I said nice things to athiests as long as they were civil.

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

I have a hankering for the vedic texts but still they were written by men and could be total bullshit. Paganism is fascinating but it could just be baloney. I love New Age stuff, though I usually dont get much spiritual experience from them. I enjoy science but because it is self-correcting I have to keep in mind that some concept I hold near and dear right now could be proved to be baloney some time in the future.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

I am open minded. I said nice things to athiests as long as they were civil.

 

 

 

So you would be willing to entertain the thought that Jewish texts are baloney?

 

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

[ContraBardus]

I heard Moses had a burning bush.

 

 

Hmm, yes. I hear that's quite the condition. I happen to know someone who knows someone else whose second cousin twice removed three times might have a tonic that should probably do something to help out with that maybe a little.

 

Why, for only a dollar that's practically a steal. I just happen to have a bottle right here, drink this and in as little as twenty three months I'll be gone...I mean it'll be gone for sure.

 

Just sign right here and I'll let it go for the low low price of two dollars, a pair of shoes, and the horse you rode in on. It's probably sickly anyway, and I'm sure a bit of a walk will do you some good. Might even help with that condition you told me about. Excuse me, but since we've already got a deal, do you mind if I get a light? Don't worry, just apply directly to the affected area and it'll clear up in some time. Why in as little as a week or four you'll be as right as rain. You won't find a better deal for me anywhere else I assure you.

 

Thanks you're a pal, now what was it we agreed on again? Oh, that's right, three dollars, a pair of shoes, those ones you're wearing will be fine, a horse and buggy, and a signature on this deed to your house. Why, that's such a good deal that you're practically being robbed blind. Don't worry about signing, I'm almost sure that it's just a formality. Besides, it's not like you'll end up wandering the desert for forty years or anything. Just sign right here on the dotted line and this miracle cure could be yours, and in only a month this suppository will do wonders for whatever it is you said was wrong. Do you happen to have a pen? I seem to have misplaced yours for some reason.

[Ravenstar]

LOL.. you guys are hilarious!

 

I'd comment on the historicity (?) of the OT... for BlackCat, but this is the science thread... and I think I covered that fairly extensively in either the Lions Den, or general christian theology already...

 

Let me know about the mud wrestling with burning bushes - there's something I'd like to see!  lol

 

ps... not stepping on any toes, but shouldn't this thread be moved to the Den? It seems to have taken on a flavor the lions might enjoy     just a thought.

[mymistake]

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

 

 

Oh you are understanding, recognize valid arguments, care about the truth and are open minded?  Well then why do the first 40 pages of this thread exist?    

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

 

 

Oh you are understanding, recognize valid arguments, care about the truth and are open minded?  Well then why do the first 40 pages of this thread exist?   

 

Because you are an a-- h----

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

 

 

Oh you are understanding, recognize valid arguments, care about the truth and are open minded?  Well then why do the first 40 pages of this thread exist?   

 

Because you are an a-- h----

 

 

 

Nice try Nat but I was only lurking when the first half of the thread was created.  So if I am not responsible then who else can you blame?

[Guest nat]

 

In my experience the best way to save face is to fully admit to being wrong as soon as you realize you are wrong and take full responsibility for your errors.  Most people respect such actions.

 

Read your own words big guy.

 

You said that I said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and I never did. And you have not yet posted that I said that it MENTIONS eugenics.

 

Say one thing and do another. Typical.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

 

i understand why atheists say what they say. I don't close myself off from their arguments. Every valid argument has merit. When a valid argument is not ultimately "true" it still represents an element of truth because if there was not an element of truth then it would not have been a valid argument. You won't find that with evangelicals and other narrow minded people. Ultimately, the real truth is a product of all the angles together, just like white light is made up of all colors.

 

Will you admit that this is open mindedness?

 

 

Oh you are understanding, recognize valid arguments, care about the truth and are open minded?  Well then why do the first 40 pages of this thread exist?   

 

Because you are an a-- h----

 

 

 

Nice try Nat but I was only lurking when the first half of the thread was created.  So if I am not responsible then who else can you blame?

 

There were others. Aside from that, there was some legitimate refining that was necessary.

[mymistake]

 

 

In my experience the best way to save face is to fully admit to being wrong as soon as you realize you are wrong and take full responsibility for your errors.  Most people respect such actions.

 

Read your own words big guy.

 

You said that I said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and I never did. And you have not yet posted that I said that it MENTIONS eugenics.

 

Say one thing and do another. Typical.

 

 

We have been over this.  I provided the post numbers and page numbers.  Your response was to talk about kissing my ass.  Remember?  I didn't care for that kind of talk so you did it a lot more.  When you don't like the facts you change the subject.

 

 

One more time:

Page 37 post 739 nat says:

 

 

Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah.

 

 

Page 36 post 715 nat said

"Mainstream scientists got it wrong with Eugenics and my religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong." 

 

Later nat changed the wording removing the word "always" so he could paint me as a bad guy

 

Page 36 post 717 is a quote of nat that preserves his original words.

 

 

Page 37 post 728 nat states:

 

Deuteronomy 21:16

 

When he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

 

Eugenics is the exact opposite. Pick the better breed. pick the son of the wife you love because she is prettier, more talented etc.

 

No. The Torah says you don't do that.

 

OK?

 

 

So who was the one making claims about what the Torah says?  That was nat.  Who made claims that this was strait from the Torah?  That was nat.  Who made claims that Judaism has always had it right that eugenics was wrong?  That was nat.

[Guest nat]

 

Mymistake,

 

I you you were not up to the challenge.

 

 

Once again.

 

IF 

There was ever complete nothing before us, inclusive of nothing to change the nothing into something (Remember that it is all part of the if)

 

Then

 

We could not exist.

 

Since we do exist, that means the if statement is not true.

 

That means that there was not ever before us complete nothing inclusive of nothing to change nothing into something.

 

OK?

 

Actually yes, that is an improvement.

 

MM,

 

You of all people are asking me why it took so long???????????????????????

 

It took countless pages until you posted the above.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

In my experience the best way to save face is to fully admit to being wrong as soon as you realize you are wrong and take full responsibility for your errors.  Most people respect such actions.

 

Read your own words big guy.

 

You said that I said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and I never did. And you have not yet posted that I said that it MENTIONS eugenics.

 

Say one thing and do another. Typical.

 

 

We have been over this.  I provided the post numbers and page numbers.  Your response was to talk about kissing my ass.  Remember?  I didn't care for that kind of talk so you did it a lot more.  When you don't like the facts you change the subject.

 

Imbecile.

 

The kissing tuchess was a response to you stupidity about asking for a verse and then criticizing me for it.

 

I will again dig up the post that is relevant and you will see that I never said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics.

 

A-- H---

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

 

Wow! The depths you go to when you can't admit something as black and white of you saying I said the Torah mentions eugenics and I did not.

 

Sheesh!!!

 

 

 

 

I went back through the thread and pin pointed the exact spot where you made the claim that your religion had always opposed eugenics.  I also discovered that you edited your post to remove the word "always".  Editing isn't bad in itself but making false accusations regarding the part you edited is wrong.  Now it takes a lot of work for me to sift through hundreds of posts and it takes no work at all for you to lie so why should we continue?  If you are not going to be honest then this is pointless. 

 

On page 37 post 739 you most certainly did write:

"Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah."

 

Underlining added to trap you in your lies.  These were your words so stop trying to paint me as a bad guy.  

 

I said it disapproves of eugenics.

 

I said it is clear as day straight from the Torah that it is wrong.

 

Where did I say that the Torah MENTIONS eugenics?

 

MM, Genius,

 

Show me where in the underlined parts above it says anything about the Torah MENTIONING eugenics.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

In my experience the best way to save face is to fully admit to being wrong as soon as you realize you are wrong and take full responsibility for your errors.  Most people respect such actions.

 

Read your own words big guy.

 

You said that I said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics and I never did. And you have not yet posted that I said that it MENTIONS eugenics.

 

Say one thing and do another. Typical.

 

 

We have been over this.  I provided the post numbers and page numbers.  Your response was to talk about kissing my ass.  Remember?  I didn't care for that kind of talk so you did it a lot more.  When you don't like the facts you change the subject.

 

 

One more time:

Page 37 post 739 nat says:

 

 

Bhim,

 

Whether or not there are Torah verses you or anyone else finds objectionable, that particular verse is as clear as you can get in disapproving of eugenics.

 

Think about it. You love this wife. She is pretty and talented, has all the good breeding traits. Then there is this other wife. You can't stand her. She has everything you want to get away from. What does eugenics say? It says to engineer the good breed. Make him special and carry on his traits. What does the Torah say?

 

It says no!

 

Clear as day. Straight from the Torah.

 

 

Page 36 post 715 nat said

"Mainstream scientists got it wrong with Eugenics and my religion always had it right that eugenics is wrong." 

 

Later nat changed the wording removing the word "always" so he could paint me as a bad guy

 

Page 36 post 717 is a quote of nat that preserves his original words.

 

 

Page 37 post 728 nat states:

 

Deuteronomy 21:16

 

When he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

 

Eugenics is the exact opposite. Pick the better breed. pick the son of the wife you love because she is prettier, more talented etc.

 

No. The Torah says you don't do that.

 

OK?

 

 

So who was the one making claims about what the Torah says?  That was nat.  Who made claims that this was strait from the Torah?  That was nat.  Who made claims that Judaism has always had it right that eugenics was wrong?  That was nat.

 

The Edit came before your post and had nothing to do with you.

 

Genius,

 

Show exactly where I said the Torah MENTIONS eugenics. I said it disaproves of it. I said the Torah is against it. I said the Torah says breeding for super kids is wrong.

 

But where did I say that the Torah actually MENTIONS eugenics.