On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:37:32 -0700, Checkmate <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote:
.
>Warning!  Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by 
>Checkmate!
>
>First  check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
> 
>
>> 
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 23:31:59 -0500, "Ms. Kitty" <ms@kitty.now> wrote:
>> >"Checkmate" <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote:
>> >> First  check out what Ms. Kitty said:
>> >>> "Checkmate" <LunaticFringe@The.Edge> wrote:
>> >>> > First  check out what Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. said:
>> >>> >> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 14:19:08 -0700 (PDT), bookman
>> >>> >> <The_pokerguy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, Emmett Gulley
wrote:
>> >>> >> >> I will have this job for a long time to come
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >If you are always on time, do your job quickly and well,
and avoid
>> >>> >> >drama, then this will be a true statement.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Getting to work on time may be an issue, given your transportation
>> >>> >> >options, but I don't think that is a guaranteed problem.
 The 
>> >>> >> >relevant
>> >>> >> >question is whether or not you can stay away from drama.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Given your history on AUK, FB, etc, and your behavior at
McD's, I 
>> >>> >> >think
>> >>> >> >you are going to have to work hard at avoiding drama.  All
previous
>> >>> >> >evidence  points to the probability that you will dive headlong
into
>> >>> >> >drama, if you believe you aren't getting what you deserve.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Prove us all wrong, Emmett.  Demonstrate that you can hold
onto this 
>> >>> >> >job
>> >>> >> >by avoiding drama no matter what.  If you can manage that,
you have a
>> >>> >> >good chance of not only keeping this job, but actually improving
>> >>> >> >yourself as a person.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Good luck, Emmett.  You're going to need it.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >ESL!
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I say, "Fuck the little felching weasel!" I hope he FAILS!
>> >>> >
>> >>> > You don't think people are worthy of redemption?  Notice I said
>> >>> > "worthy," not necessarily "capable".  I'd like to see Emmett succeed.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Only by the grace of God, but you don't believe in God.
>> >>
>> >> I'm an agnostic, not an atheist.
>> >
>> >Well, that's better than atheist.  We can always build on that. . .
>> 
>> Don't be so sure of it. Actually, agnostics are stupider 
>> than atheists. Why? Because atheists deny the existence of 
>> God (they take a stance) while the stupid agnostics are 
>> like your typical liberal in that they claim the existence 
>> of God is unknowable despite the fact that they have God's 
>> creation rubbed in their snot-nosed, pimply faces day in 
>> and day out.
>> 
>> An agnostic is a person who says an obvious reality is 
>> unknowable - all the while not realizing how stupid they
>> sound as the fools claim to *know* that the existence of 
>> God is not knowable. Talk about double-speak!  OMG.
>
>
>
>Again, you proudly display your ignorance as if it were a record-
>breaking turd.  "Taking a stance" is only admirable if you're capable of 
>demonstrating a credible reason for taking it.  Atheists look at the 
>world in all it's complexity, and assume that life developed out of a 
>mind-boggling number of fortuitous events that brought miraculous order 
>out of chaos, when the universal norm is for order to deteriorate into 
>disorder (IE: entropy).
>
>Those who believe in (place your favorite 

    There might be some sort of God OR CREATOR associated with this planet.

>fairy tale "religion" here), 
>are convinced that life was instantly created by a magic 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur
C. Clarke

>Sky Daddy 

    Explain why you want people to think that if God does exist, he is likely to
reside ON EARTH.

>out 
>of clay, or a rib, or some other such mythical nonsense, 

    That life was somehow formed from lifeless material.

>when scientific 
>evidence clearly shows that not to be the case.  

    Provide scientific evidence that life did NOT somehow form from lifeless
material.

>The Ancients had an excuse... they were ignorant and mostly uneducated.  
>The ones who were responsible for promoting and exploiting the myths 
>were the ones who quickly figured out that it was the easiest way to 
>control the ignorant and gullible herds (Constantine et al).
>
>I've asked you this before, and you've always failed to answer it:  If 
>you had been born into a culture that espoused a different religion, 
>such as Islam or Hinduism for example, would you have ever held the 
>Christian beliefs that you're so convinced are "The Way" today?  

    If there is a God associated with this planet it seems VERY clear to some of
us that there are a number of different beliefs about him, and different ways of
referring to him. That's a starting line. Some people somehow can't get as "far"
as that starting line.

>Are all 
>the children who grow up in those cultures and embrace what they were 
>told, doomed to burn eternally in your mythical hell?  

    The following quotes are from the Koran:

[al-Baqarah 2:62] Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed
unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians,
and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and
doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no
fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
            ÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
[al-`Ankabut 29:46] 
And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do
wrong; and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you; our God and your God is One, and unto Him
we surrender.

>What kind of God 
>would will that upon his creations?
>
>As an agnostic, I believe there very well could be a God of some sort.  
>It's no more of a stretch to accept that a God COULD exist, than it is 
>to accept that the universe we live in DOES exist.  The conundrum lies 
>in trying to explain where either came from in the first place.
>
>Evolutionary science doesn't disprove the existence of a God, it just 
>contradicts the ludicrous claims as to the methodology that a God may 
>have used to create life as we presently know it.
>
>As a Christian, your set of beliefs has been shown to be based entirely 
>on anecdotal "evidence" and stories that smack of mythology.  In this 
>era of scientific enlightenment, it boggles my mind to see so many 
>otherwise-intelligent people such as yourself, still clinging to such 
>antiquated and tenuous arguments.
>
>Personally, I believe that there probably is a Creator.  I prefer that 
>term over "God," because the term God means many different things to 
>many different people.  As an agnostic, I can't assign 

    You're a strong agnostic which from my pov is as absurd a position as is
possible, even as absurd as strong atheism. I'm a weak agnostic, which of course
from my pov is the most realistic unless/until God lets a person know of his
existence, if in fact he truly does exist.

>any specific 
>attributes to define who... or even what this Creator might be, and this 
>is where I take great exception to any religion that claims to "know" 
>such a Creator, or what this Creator might "want" from us.

    Yet you're comfortable saying all of their beliefs about him--those of
Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and probably Jews--are wrong. Now try explaining
how you want people to think you disagree with yourself about it.

>People fear death, yet they know it's inevitable.  They want desperately 
>to believe in a "heaven," where they'll go and live happily ever after.  
>It's a comforting concept, but not supported the slightest bit by 
>present knowledge or reason.

    WHAT sort of evidence to you think there "should be" of an afterlife, WHERE
do you think it "should be", and WHY do you think it "should be" to God's/the
Creator's benefit to provide us with it?

>To those who claim they "know" there's a God/Creator, as well as those 
>who claim they "know" there isn't, I'd suggest that the methodology that 
>brought you to that conclusion is flawed.  

    If God does exist there's no reason to believe he has never let anyone know
of his existence. The very idea is horribly absurd. In contrast to that if God
does not exist no one could ever know it, because there's no way they could find
out. Similarly there's no way you could find out that God/Creator has never let
anyone know of his existence if he exists.