same and it's bad bc I just did the whole slack off thing on Friday too.
...this is for those confused and honestly seeking the truth. It could be you.
"setting up NATO forces closes and closer"??
Since I posted the above, Macron has asked ' are we America's vassals?'
No that wasn't harassment. Calling that sexual harassment actually hurts people filing real claims of harassment.
I hate strawman arguments.
Do you really not remember?
Life lessons we are never ready or prepared for...
Been there done that already...if you were reading you'd know. But them it is beyond your comprehension that someone could be a believer and then no longer believe. When they claim they couldn't they can't back up their claim, when asked to prove it.
neat, i'm talking about results.
You appear to be jealous
Not sure if you noticed, but all of the greatest countries in the world were once "Christian".
That's a fine platitude, but I asked you about history - actual places and actual times.
Yep funny as hell though.
You should have stopped after "I don't think".
It's been nice but I've wanted to move for a while. People up here seem to get defensive when you tell them you'd prefer city living but they don't seem to mind slagging city living. There was one guy we knew when we first moved here who would say he was going to the big smoke. I always thought he was referring to Toronto but found out he meant Orillia!
He is known as the Trey Gowdy of Fox News
Yikes. I was just accused of stalking--maybe I should accuse you, too.
Do you think the free exercise of religion is restricted to within the walls of a house of worship?
By far the most commonly asserted argument of the absurd by atheists is the "lacker" argument, followed closely by the claim one cannot prove a negative, and near this is the assertion that they have no burden of proof in entering the conversation about a given god's existence. In fact, these three claims form an often unstated meta-argument which amounts to the idea that they are right by definition, which is as fallacious as any argument offered by theists.
It's just a bunch of people that have allowed themselves to fall for propaganda disguised as advertising to drum up firearms sales month over month and sow discord with their own government.
And just who determines what constitutes "correct" judgment?
[?We can't take Luke at his word that he cited extant sources for the simple reason that he doesn't name the supposed source, and because Luke himself is as historically evasive as Jesus.?]
I love Ninkasi. After all, she is the goddess of beer.
I hope you have seen an MD to rule out/address any organic issues that maybe impacting your well being. You are worth taking the best care of yourself.
Are you saying that private equity groups invest in non-profit churches in order to make profit?
'Appeal to experience' is not a single unitary concept but a complex one which could include everything from standard experimental empiricism (which is by definition based on empirical experience/observation) to drug-induced hallucinations and much in between. Most knowledge claims are grounded in testimony or appeal to authority in any case (both in religion and other spheres such as current events, history and many others where we cannot directly experience the objects of cognition (e.g. the past or an event we cannot observe). The problem is not one of trusting experience or trusting alleged authorities, but rather determining *which* experiences and which alleged experts should be treated as reliable sources. Empiricism,among other things, tries to render observational experience a) systematic b) predictable and c) capable of being replicated by others. If we treat knowledge as hypotheses about what events will be observed/experienced under specified conditions (e.g. in a laboratory experiment) and our predictions pan out across multiple trials (i.e. we experience/observe the same results) than we have shown those experiences/observations to be capable of confirmation in public. They are still experiences, but they are not unique to individual subjects since they can be repeated (e.g. I experience burning when putting my hand into a flame, but so do others-- and in a way that can be easily demonstrated in public). So we *want* knowledge to be based on experience, but experience that has observable and predictable consequences which can be evaluated by multiple experiencers or observers.
Oh Kitty! I?m here for you. Pick up my sweet
It seems he didn't love his father, Lol.
Your way DOES NOT WORK as evidenced by the shithole of a society we have. If your punishment model worked we would be aces here
I?m happy to see how butt hurt you are about it.