we are hung up here on the definition of "certainty". like conversational certainy vs mathematical positive reality. i am quite certain that christianity is a crock of ****. i cant prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt though. same thing with any other superstition. i can make up lots of things that you are pretty damn positive are absurd, but you cannot prove it. and when i point out that you cannot prove it, that doesnt make the original thing any less absurd. i can promise you that you will not be hit by lightning this week. i am certain it isnt gonna happen. but then again i really cant be certain can i?
You guessed it! Does it trouble you deeply to know that many people who are far smarter than you share a relationship with their Creator?
for the record, the big font is not required for me to understand that you disagree. of course not. intelligence is a multi-faceted thing. i would argue that those folks, while pretty smart, are not really exercising their critical thinking skills the way they might. and there are people far smarter than me that have been convinced of really crazy things, like communism or even nazism. it can be hard to escapr indoctrination. although in fairness to me, i would point out that people smarter than you or me are far more likely to be atheist than people dumber than you or me. in your case i would suspect that people smarter than you are really the top of the heap and far far more faithless than the general population. people over 157 are truly rare. but reality isnt based on votes, no matter how smart the voters are, is it?
Perhaps if you approached a 157 IQ you would be able to understand how to use pronouns. The use of the large font is to convey surprise at your continuing to beat the dead horse of atheism regardless of the utter lack of support for your views on this forum.
not sure what you mean about pronouns, i was speaking for martin, not for "us". maybe you are right i cant understand with my 101 iq. as far as your surprise goes, thats nice, you keep it up i guess. and just so you know, i am gonna go ahead and put you on my ignore list. i am just not a fan. sorry.
Not that you are reading this, but you didn't have any pronoun there; it just says "for". Not that you are reading this, but sweet!
All the laws of science don't say that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly. The Laws of Aerodynamics do. However, the Laws of Physics over-rule the Laws of Aerodynamics in this case. Despite the insects inefficiencies in aerodynamics, the creature's wings supply enough sheer force to keep it in the air. Did you know that the right and left wings actually operate independent of each other? What they lack in inefficiency of flight they make up for in maneuverability. I cringed when I heard my pastor use this analogy when I was in High School. I only wish I had the courage to set him straight back then. Again, just because we are unable to explain something doesn't give us carte blanche to just make something up to satisfy our arrogant desire to know everything. It simply means that we don't know (yet). This is the kind of thinking that led to man thinking the world was flat and Teletubbies...