Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-14-2003, 01:34 AM | #31 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,047
|
Quote:
I suck at signs . |
|
04-14-2003, 01:37 AM | #32 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,626
|
Quote:
Amaranth am I an aries or a taurus? |
|
04-14-2003, 01:38 AM | #33 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 279
|
*chuckle* I suppose an argument has to be novel in order to be correct now?
Le sigh....Since the fun way of presenting the argument has been blown off, let's take the more formal road: What is a (soul/angel)? Where can I find proof of the existance of a (soul/angel) as you have described it? |
04-14-2003, 01:41 AM | #34 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,047
|
Some want to believe they have a soul, I prefer to believe my brain is that amazing. Does that make me a bad person?
|
04-14-2003, 01:43 AM | #35 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,626
|
Quote:
didn't think so... |
|
04-14-2003, 01:45 AM | #36 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,626
|
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2003, 01:50 AM | #37 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
There's proof for the soul, and I can give it till the cows come home, but you won't accept it, you'll always give a materialistic explanation (oxygen deprivation / endorphins / ketamine / take yer pick). Might as well try to talk the Pope out being Catholic. You materialists crack me up. "We have the simpler theory, so the burden of proof is on YOU". The easy way. No need to disprove God or souls, always the burden of proof on the claimant. Very, very convenient. Setting up the rules of the game so that naturalism always wins. I'm tired of playing this foolish game. Goodbye. |
|
04-14-2003, 01:51 AM | #38 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 279
|
I'm a Gemini, Libra rising.
And that's a toughie, Amie. The signs change based upon the position of the heavenly bodies, not really the date - What this boils down to is depending on exactly what time, and what longitude/latitude you were born at is the deciding factor. Newspaper horoscopes are very guestimated, but someone who knew the details of your birthplace/time could tell you exactly which particular sign you fall under. As a note, since someone might be interested, your Sun Sign (the newspaper one) is actually most broad, and least defining, of all of them. Beyond that comes the Rising Sign, and the Houses. Imagine your Sun Sign as the foundation a house is built upon - The Rising Sign is the structure, and the rest of the stars dictate the details (such as color and interior decor). Anyways, I have no idea why I believe in this. I'm a (sometimes abusrdly) logical person, but something about it clings to me. Perhaps it's just that my birth chart just smacks the nail on the head repeadly. Amaranth |
04-14-2003, 01:57 AM | #39 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 1,626
|
Quote:
I think your belief in this is just groovy Amaranth |
|
04-14-2003, 01:59 AM | #40 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,047
|
Quote:
Oh, and the rules are determined according to how nature works, not to make nature work. Take it easy okay? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|