Have you ever seen a ghost?

[DiceX]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Where did Joeypost refer to "an old man in the sky"...?

 

:shrug:

 

Joey didn't. Shooty himself did. He was being self-referentially tongue in cheek, and making sure that everyone didn't think he was being deliberately insulting. I always read his posts carefully, and it was clear to me.

 

I don't always agree with Shooty, but I always enjoy his posting.

 

 

Welp, I see Fingh's in Apologist mode today...

 

 

When i see you start to get wound up tighter than a DT-90, I like to make sure some of the tension is released. It's better for everyone that way.

 

Now you're just being a . No one's wound up.

 

And you've apparently missed the rhetorical point of my question to Shooty. Because you're right, Joey did NOT bring up an "old man in the sky", but because he used the word "biblical", Shooty brought the "old man in the sky" into the argument.

 

There's no "old man in the sky" mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

 

(thumbs u

 

Your using a classic Straw Man to take my response out of context.

 

This is why its no fun to "discuss" with you.

 

You're using "straw man argument" incorrectly. Please look up what a straw man argument actually is, and then come back.

 

To assist: my question was a TANGENT, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the main discussion.

[supapimp]

spell check is your friend. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

 

I've seen a few. They were ghosts that looked like Gargamel.

 

 

[DiceX]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

 

I've seen a few. They were ghosts that looked like Gargamel.

 

 

Were they wearing leather pants?

 

 

[VintageComics]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

 

I've seen a few. They were ghosts that looked like Gargamel.

 

 

Were they wearing leather pants?

 

 

Vinyl capes too.

[DiceX]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

 

I've seen a few. They were ghosts that looked like Gargamel.

 

 

Were they wearing leather pants?

 

 

Vinyl capes too.

 

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

You're using "straw man argument" incorrectly. Please look up what a straw man argument actually is, and then come back.

 

To assist: my question was a TANGENT, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the main discussion.

 

(1) It is not a straw man argument, it is classic deflection. Verbal prestidigitation.

 

purple cotton-candy cross-dressing bunnies named "Steve",

 

(2) Do not mock my deity

[DiceX]

purple cotton-candy cross-dressing bunnies named "Steve",

 

(2) Do not mock my deity

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

You're using "straw man argument" incorrectly. Please look up what a straw man argument actually is, and then come back.

 

To assist: my question was a TANGENT, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the main discussion.

 

(1) It is not a straw man argument, it is classic deflection. Verbal prestidigitation.

 

Now you see it, now you don't....

 

Except you still don't know what "tangent" means.

 

It wasn't a deflection, because there was, at that time, nothing to "deflect."

 

If I ask you your thoughts on prestidigitation, because you just mentioned it, would I be "deflecting", or introducing a tangent...?

 

(thumbs u

 

(Oh, relax. It's the harmless kind.)

 

purple cotton-candy cross-dressing bunnies named "Steve",

 

(2) Do not mock my deity

 

Which part was the mocking..?

 

The purple? Or the cotton-candy?

 

:shrug:

[jools&jim]

 

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but this statement, while generally true, is overly broad:

 

Science cannot and will not ever know what is beyond the physical universe because science deals only WITH the physical universe.

 

Mathematicians in particular routinely deal with structures for which there is no known physical analog, or which exist (as in, can be described and understood mathematically) in dimensions other than those which correspond to physically observable reality (e.g., higher dimensional solids). That theoretical physicists use this stuff as part of their work (supergravity, string theory, etc.) doesn't discount the fact that they are not physically observable phenomena.

 

My astronomy professor in college was also a Jesuit priest. He liked to joke with us that Jesus after the resurrection was in fact a 4th (or higher) dimensional being who could do all manner of strange things (pass through walls, appear in two places at once, etc.) simply because our reality was "flat" to him (a la Flatland), in the same way that 3-dimensional beings like us can violate the boundaries of a 2-dimensional square by entering it not through its "walls" (i.e., its 4 sides), but from outside its plane entirely via depth, which is open to us, but closed to 2D.

 

Weird...

 

 

[DrWatson]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

(a la Flatland),

 

Disclaimer: THIS IS A TANGENT, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVERSATION AT HAND.

 

I LOVED Flatland. It was awesome. Absolutely awesome.

 

Back to the main conversation.

 

No fight...at least insofar as I'm concerned...and the conversation is general, hence my generalized statement about the physical universe.

 

(thumbs u

 

If we want to discuss the nitty gritty, I can always fall back to "time." Time is a concept which has no physical analog. We cannot see it, smell it, taste it, touch it, or hear it, yet it exists all the same, mainly due to its effects on the physical universe itself.

 

So, therefore, though "time" exists outside the physical universe, it still can be "observed" since it affects the entire physical universe.

 

If, you know, we want to get into the REAL nitty gritty of this conversation.

[DiceX]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'll guarantee there are no cross dressing bunnies named Steve.

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

 

He's not purple, he's not made of cotton candy, and I see no female articles of clothing.

 

[DrWatson]

It's pink and you are assuming it isn't sugary and edible.

[Senormac]

 

No.....no ghosts. (to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord)

Yes.....yes to spirits

Yes.... to angels or ministering spirits of The Creator

Yes ... to fallen angels or ministering spirits of The Liar

Yes .... to territorial spirits who reside is certain places and have particular boundaries.

Yes... territorial spirits can be sensed by people who move into their territories

Yes....light always disperses darkness.

Yes....territorial spirits can be displaced by Creator spirit

Yes.....ghost stories, speculations and questions are fun

No....most people do not really want to walk in faith

 

 

[VintageComics]

Judge much?

 

[VintageComics]

 

No.....no ghosts. (to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord)

Yes.....yes to spirits

Yes.... to angels or ministering spirits of The Creator

Yes ... to fallen angels or ministering spirits of The Liar

Yes .... to territorial spirits who reside is certain places and have particular boundaries.

Yes... territorial spirits can be sensed by people who move into their territories

Yes....light always disperses darkness.

Yes....territorial spirits can be displaced by Creator spirit

Yes.....ghost stories, speculations and questions are fun

No....most people do not really want to walk in faith

 

 

If you believe in spirits, you believe in ghosts. They are one and the same.

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

My wife's aunt used to see a little man out of the corner of her eye while doing the dishes in the kitchen. She chalked it up to a wild imagination, and after a while, he stopped showing up. She had never mentioned it to anyone, but a few years later, her 4-year-old asked her why the little man doesn't come to the kitchen anymore.

 

He got arrested for peeping.