'sup chumps?

[_thews]

You know... I never did like grapes all that much.

[_Bond James Bond]

A waste of bandwidth that could more effectively be used for photos of Lindsay Lohan's snatch.

uh...what's a snatch? nevermind. Don't care. If pornography is what you want there's plenty of that out there on the web. my goodness don't know what you're doing here, or more accurately, now I know why you're here. oh settle down, drama queen...

Pep pep tool.

[_asbestosman]

You know... I never did like grapes all that much.

Without grapes, there'd be no whine.

[_Bond James Bond]

Without grapes, there'd be no whine.

Or faux Jesus blood (among the Protestants).

[_Drifting]

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God. As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence. The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable. What a weird position to find oneself in, I'd say. The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.

This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders. The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church. And yet, the original critique offered of LDS belief is untenable, as reasoned by the LDS defender. The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.

There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.

[_stemelbow]

Do you pay on net or gross? Do you want net or gross blessings?

Mr. Porter was speaking to me about it, so it appears you are asking me. Don't worry about what I do with my moneys. You just simply do what you feel is best with your money and I'll do the same. Cool?

[_stemelbow]

Pep pep tool.

My goodness...such hostility. just kidding we all know its expected

[_Buffalo]

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God. As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence. The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable. What a weird position to find oneself in, I'd say. The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.

This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders. The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church. And yet, the original critique offered of LDS belief is untenable, as reasoned by the LDS defender. The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.

There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.

[_stemelbow]

Grapes are definitely one of the delightful things in this world. people who reject things like grapes and tomatoes have problems, I've learned. shoot we use them to make so many different things. Bunch of whinos.

The irony of the grapes comment has not escaped me. my goodness this whole place is about sour grapes. That's why it exists.

[_Buffalo]

Grapes are definitely one of the delightful things in this world. people who reject things like grapes and tomatoes have problems, I've learned. shoot we use them to make so many different things. Bunch of whinos.

The irony of the grapes comment has not escaped me. my goodness this whole place is about sour grapes. That's why it exists.

Stem, I would love for you to contribute something positive here! Do you think you have it within your heart to do so?