Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380035 > unrolled thread
| Started by | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-24 08:16 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-03-24 15:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 109 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 08:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-24 18:17 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 12:13 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-24 15:57 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-25 19:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-26 12:08 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-26 19:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-03-26 13:50 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-28 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-29 22:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-30 11:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-30 18:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 07:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-31 17:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-03-31 15:16 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 20:59 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-01 16:13 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:23 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-01 23:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-02 07:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-02 19:38 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-03 08:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-03 23:46 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-04 13:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 00:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-05 07:40 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-04-05 17:16 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 10:39 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 13:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:23 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-05 15:40 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-05 15:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:16 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:58 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 08:11 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 16:26 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:30 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:25 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:07 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:54 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:54 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 19:11 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-04-06 14:46 -0600
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 23:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 11:59 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:55 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-06 11:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-06 20:24 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-06 14:53 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-07 12:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-08 17:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-08 13:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-09 18:58 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 08:56 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 16:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-10 09:16 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-10 14:19 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-10 23:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-11 16:20 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-12 19:25 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 08:18 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 16:37 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-13 14:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:37 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:33 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-13 16:02 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-04-14 05:03 -0700
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-04-14 08:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:33 -0500
Re: (Christian) Insanity has benefits. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-16 04:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:32 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-13 20:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-04-14 11:38 -0500
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-14 23:20 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-04-05 18:44 +0000
Re: [OT] Re: Is there a God, Yes or No? Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-24 15:53 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ne8pib$7s6$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381098 |
On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >> >>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >> >>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. > >>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. > > Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. What elephant would that be, liar? >>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. > > Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an > alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO > God. What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. > ***** > "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <itrfgbl41big8r84tfi3iajng8nsvop392@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381151 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>> >>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>> >>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >> >>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >> >> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. > >What elephant would that be, liar? > >>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> >> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. > >There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. > >> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >> God. *L*I*A*R* Many times over. >What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. Exactly. There is none. Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of physics. The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. All of which the in-your-face liar knows already - so why does he lie about this to the more knowledgeable, better educated and more intelligent? >> ***** >> "Telling lies about having evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q1vfgbpchcr4eldpsnl5uuka6hnhr3do63@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381157 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>>> >>>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>>> >>>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >>> >>>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >>> >>> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. >> >>What elephant would that be, liar? >> >>>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >>> >>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >> >>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >> >>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >>> God. >*L*I*A*R* >Many times over. Nope. Never. >>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >Exactly. There is none. I have it. Creation. >Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >of physics. The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of creation, not by whom. >The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. I have ALL that evidence. You have none. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nebj0p$1dsa$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381159 |
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee > <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: <snip> >>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>> creator. >>> >>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>> >>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>> NO God. > >>*L*I*A*R* >>Many times over. > > Nope. Never. > >>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>Exactly. There is none. > > I have it. Creation. Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>physics. > > The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of > creation, > not by whom. > >>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. > > I have ALL that evidence. No you don't, liar. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9fkigbpfb15f2h7ltk0fgj7vfrcpglf3mg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381232 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>> creator. >>>> >>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>> >>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>> NO God. >> >>>*L*I*A*R* >>>Many times over. >> >> Nope. Never. >> >>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>Exactly. There is none. >> >> I have it. Creation. > >Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. It's argument by dishonest use of language. >>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>physics. >> >> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >> creation, >> not by whom. Nothing remotely suggests it took a "whom". and the only reason to posit this is one's pre-existing religious belief. The liar has had this explained repeatedly. Also that when there are natural explanations, there is no need to pluck anything extra out of his arse, especially when there is no evidence for it. >>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >> >> I have ALL that evidence. He's lying. Because there is none - and in any case, he's supposed to be providing if for us. Not himself. >No you don't, liar. He can't help it - he's doing what Christians who have painted themselves into a corner, do. He can't admit he hasn't, because that would mean he's be admitting he has been lying here for years. We all know he has, but as long as he doesn't admit it, he feels he's got away with it. Rather like his church and the pedophile priests - everybody knew about it but the they never admitted it, and they longer they lied about it, the deeper the hole they had dug for themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1cmkgbl8htpcnlcp88629r80ik2vduc5t0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381240 |
On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 15:06:24 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>> creator. >>>>> >>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>> >>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>> NO God. >>> >>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>Many times over. >>> >>> Nope. Never. >>> >>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>>Exactly. There is none. >>> >>> I have it. Creation. >> >>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. > >It's argument by dishonest use of language. Then tell smiler to stop it. He keeps trying to tell me that my evidence is not evidence. I guess he thinks he's the only one that can define "evidence". >>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>>physics. >>> >>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>> creation, >>> not by whom. >Nothing remotely suggests it took a "whom". and the only reason to >posit this is one's pre-existing religious belief. >The liar has had this explained repeatedly. What is your evidence that matter created itself? >Also that when there are natural explanations, there is no need to >pluck anything extra out of his arse, especially when there is no >evidence for it. Natural?? Haahaahaa. What is nature_al other than God doing it? >>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>> >>> I have ALL that evidence. >He's lying. Because there is none - and in any case, he's supposed to >be providing if for us. Not himself. It's mine. You're blind to it. >>No you don't, liar. >He can't help it - he's doing what Christians who have painted >themselves into a corner, do. >He can't admit he hasn't, because that would mean he's be admitting he >has been lying here for years. >We all know he has, but as long as he doesn't admit it, he feels he's >got away with it. You and Sergeant Schultz know........NOTHING. >Rather like his church and the pedophile priests - everybody knew >about it but the they never admitted it, and they longer they lied >about it, the deeper the hole they had dug for themselves. It was a sin, not a crime. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 08:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2amkgbpiru3te6h1ktk58pk8sn7kvfavqg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381232 |
On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: > ><snip> > >>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>> creator. >>>> >>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>> >>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>> NO God. >> >>>*L*I*A*R* >>>Many times over. >> >> Nope. Never. >> >>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. >>>Exactly. There is none. >> >> I have it. Creation. > >Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. Are you now denying creation? >>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws of >>>physics. >> >> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >> creation, >> not by whom. >> >>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists that >>>any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >> >> I have ALL that evidence. > >No you don't, liar. Creation, but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nedtm9$1eng$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381256 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>> creator. >>>>> >>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>> >>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>> NO God. >>> >>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>Many times over. >>> >>> Nope. Never. >>> >>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>beliefs. >>>>Exactly. There is none. >>> >>> I have it. Creation. >> >>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. > > Are you now denying creation? What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >>>>of physics. >>> >>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>> creation, >>> not by whom. >>> >>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >>>>that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>> >>> I have ALL that evidence. >> >>No you don't, liar. > > Creation, A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. > but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. > ***** > "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 14:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ok9lgbpcpb08vbrtocs0tn45f5828v83vv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381268 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>> creator. >>>>>> >>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being >>>>>>> NO God. >>>> >>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>Many times over. >>>> >>>> Nope. Never. >>>> >>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>> >>>> I have it. Creation. >>> >>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >> >> Are you now denying creation? > >What "now"? I've always denied it. Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known laws >>>>>of physics. >>>> >>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>> creation, >>>> not by whom. >>>> >>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims are >>>>>fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody insists >>>>>that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all parsimonious, >>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>> >>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>> >>>No you don't, liar. >> >> Creation, >A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. >> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. And yours. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neeojm$pnh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381277 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>> >>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>Many times over. >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>> >>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>> >>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>> >>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>> >>> Are you now denying creation? >> >>What "now"? I've always denied it. > > Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. Yes. >>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>> >>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>>> creation, >>>>> not by whom. >>>>> >>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>> >>>>No you don't, liar. >>> >>> Creation, > >>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. > > Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. You talk to the the non-existent? Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. >>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. > > And yours. What belief do I have, liar earl? > ***** > "Talking to the non-existent is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <su4ogb1jp3jgr124rfvnqi2ggglpt1ahs1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381305 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>> >>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>> >>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>> >>>> Are you now denying creation? >>> >>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >> >> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. > >Yes. God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. >>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism of >>>>>> creation, >>>>>> not by whom. >>>>>> >>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>>> >>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>> >>>> Creation, >> >>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >> >> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. >You talk to the the non-existent? >Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >> >> And yours. > >What belief do I have, liar earl? That there is NO God but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nejhg7$ofk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381374 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>><snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>> >>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>> >>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>> >>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >> >>Yes. > > God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? >>>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism >>>>>>> of creation, >>>>>>> not by whom. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>>> >>>>> Creation, >>> >>>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >>> >>> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. > >>You talk to the the non-existent? >>Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. > > You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. No. I'm a daddy. >>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>> >>> And yours. >> >>What belief do I have, liar earl? > > That there is NO God I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. > but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? > ***** > "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 14:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l7jqgb9qt94bvecl9jnd5pmoad6ttj26dt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381451 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>>> >>>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>> >>>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>> >>>Yes. >> >> God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. WHAT FUCKING GOD? >My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? > >>>>>>>>>Nothing whatsoever remotely points towards a god. >>>>>>>>>And the proven serial liar has been given several scenarios from >>>>>>>>>astrophysicists and cosmologists - none of which break any known >>>>>>>>>laws of physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The laws of astrophysics and cosmologist addresses the mechanism >>>>>>>> of creation, >>>>>>>> not by whom. WHAT FUCKING CREATION AND WHAT FUCKING "WHOM"? >>>>>>>>>The difference being that he insists his baseless, maximal claims >>>>>>>>>are fact in spite of the total lack of evidence - while nobody >>>>>>>>>insists that any of science's scenarios fact. They are also all >>>>>>>>>parsimonious, >>>>>>>>>ie they are minimal extrapolations from current knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have ALL that evidence. SO EITHER PROVIDE IT OR STOP LYING, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR - BECAUSE YOU AREN'T TALKING AT (NOT WITH) YOURSELF. >>>>>>>No you don't, liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> Creation, WHAT FUCKING CREATION? >>>>>A supposed creation for which you cannot show evidence. >>>> >>>> Then begone in a whisper of smoke as you don't exist. What a fucking moron. >>>You talk to the the non-existent? >>>Seek urgent medical help for your psychosis. >> >> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. Idiot. >No. I'm a daddy. A real daddy, not a priest. >>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. LIAR. >>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>> >>>> And yours. And up yours, in-your-face lying moron. >>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >> >> That there is NO God LIAR. >I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. How many times do we have to explain our POV only for him to keep lying about us, to us? When we shouldn't even have had to, in the first place, because it is our own business - not his. >> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. WHAT FUCKING "OUR BELIEFS" WAS THE PROVEN SERIAL LIAR LYING ABOUT, LET ALONE THOSE THAT HAVE TO BE DEFENDED. We don't waste time and effort believing that something as irrelevant to us as the hypothetical object of his religious beliefs, doesn't exist. Especially when it doesn't even reach the level of something that could or could not exist. The Encarta World Dictionary, print edition's definition of the word "God".... "the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only god" In other words, it is only seen as "real" inside those religions - outside them, it is merely somebody else's religious belief. While the belief certainly exists, there is no reason to treat it as any more than that. Which has been explained to the pig-ignorant, lying moron over and over again. >As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? > >> ***** >> "Telling lies is the most perfect form of Prayer." >> Pope Paul VI ***** It's certainly almost a sacrament. In spite of the ninth commandment (or the eighth, depending which denomination) onnot bearing false witness. Even though all we see is the lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k7hsgb1nilgslqimedmugvo3mndhnjutod@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381451 |
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >>>>>>>>>>> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there >>>>>>>>>>> being NO God. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>>> >>>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>> >>>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>> >>>Yes. >> >> God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. > >My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? Only the mixing of the two chemicals of life, 1/2 found in man and 1/2 found in female. All prearrangements come form God. >> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >No. I'm a daddy. There you go. Only 1/2 that required. > >>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>> >>>> And yours. >>> >>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >> >> That there is NO God Yet you've never also said what was your belief. >I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. >> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. >As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? You reject God. Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nelruo$7ae$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381507 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:11:45 -0500, duke wrote: > On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer >>>>>>>>>>>> an alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for >>>>>>>>>>>> there being NO God. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>>>> >>>>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>>> >>>>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>>> >>>>Yes. >>> >>> God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. >> >>My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? > > Only the mixing of the two chemicals of life, 1/2 found in man and 1/2 > found in female. Then not the ONLY reason. > All prearrangements come form God. That would be the supposed god for which you have no evidence. >>> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>No. I'm a daddy. > > There you go. Only 1/2 that required. >> >>>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>>> >>>>> And yours. >>>> >>>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >>> >>> That there is NO God >>I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. >>> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. > Yet you've never also said what was your belief. My beliefs are that you're an idiot and that you owe me $55 million. >>As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? > > You reject God. That would be the god for which you have no evidence. > Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. Nope. I have no beliefs about your supposed god. > ***** > "Idiocy is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 14:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oc7tgbphmpfjkv0u6726bculutbsc6p65i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381523 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:11:45 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:15:20 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:19:03 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:45:58 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:18:08 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:06:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 08:47:37 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:47:25 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 13:01:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee >>>>>>>>>> <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >>>>>>>>>>>>> <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a >>>>>>>>>>>>> creator. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer >>>>>>>>>>>>> an alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for >>>>>>>>>>>>> there being NO God. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>*L*I*A*R* >>>>>>>>>>>Many times over. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nope. Never. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid >>>>>>>>>>>>beliefs. >>>>>>>>>>>Exactly. There is none. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have it. Creation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Not evidence, merely your unevidenced belief. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you now denying creation? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What "now"? I've always denied it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then why are you here? There is existence without creation. >>>>> >>>>>Yes. >>>> >>>> God's creation of you is the ONLY reason you exist. >>> >>>My parents having sex had nothing to do with it? >> >> Only the mixing of the two chemicals of life, 1/2 found in man and 1/2 >> found in female. > >Then not the ONLY reason. Just mix them and viola`. >> All prearrangements come form God. > >That would be the supposed god for which you have no evidence. No, for which YOU choose to pretend there is no God. >>>> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>No. I'm a daddy. >> >> There you go. Only 1/2 that required. >>> >>>>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>>>> >>>>>> And yours. >>>>> >>>>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >>>> >>>> That there is NO God > >>>I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. > >>>> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. > >> Yet you've never also said what was your belief. >My beliefs are that you're an idiot and that you owe me $55 million. Check's in the mail. >>>As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? >> You reject God. >That would be the god for which you have no evidence. Of course I do, and he said your king should prepare for the lake of fire. >> Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. >Nope. I have no beliefs about your supposed god. Sure, you do. You demand there is NO God. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nem9jq$u70$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381535 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:30:45 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:11:45 -0500, duke wrote: <snip> >>> All prearrangements come form God. >> >>That would be the supposed god for which you have no evidence. > > No, for which YOU choose to pretend there is no God. > >>>>> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>>No. I'm a daddy. >>> >>> There you go. Only 1/2 that required. >>>> >>>>>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And yours. >>>>>> >>>>>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >>>>> >>>>> That there is NO God >> >>>>I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. >> >>>>> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. >> >>> Yet you've never also said what was your belief. > >>My beliefs are that you're an idiot and that you owe me $55 million. > > Check's in the mail. That confirms my first belief. >>>>As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? >>> You reject God. > >>That would be the god for which you have no evidence. > > Of course I do, Then why can't you show it? Did the dog eat it? > and he said your king should prepare for the lake of fire. I don't have a king, moron. >>> Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. >>Nope. I have no beliefs about your supposed god. > > Sure, you do. You demand there is NO God. Says earl the Satanist. > ***** > "The Satanic Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 11:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlgvgbl9jrhhd3mk4of2ru9k7fmc800r4d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381543 |
On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:19:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:30:45 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:11:45 -0500, duke wrote: > ><snip> > >>>> All prearrangements come form God. >>> >>>That would be the supposed god for which you have no evidence. >> >> No, for which YOU choose to pretend there is no God. >> >>>>>> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>>>No. I'm a daddy. >>>> >>>> There you go. Only 1/2 that required. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced belief. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >>>>>> >>>>>> That there is NO God >>> >>>>>I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. >>> >>>>>> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. >>> >>>> Yet you've never also said what was your belief. >> >>>My beliefs are that you're an idiot and that you owe me $55 million. >> Check's in the mail. >That confirms my first belief. Just don't hold your breath waiting on it. >>>>>As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? >>>> You reject God. >>>That would be the god for which you have no evidence. >> Of course I do, >Then why can't you show it? Did the dog eat it? Nope. It's all clear. You just refuse to look at it, and so you will be judged. >> and he said your king should prepare for the lake of fire. >I don't have a king, moron. I do. It's takes a King to have a Kindgom of God. > >>>> Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. >>>Nope. I have no beliefs about your supposed god. >> >> Sure, you do. You demand there is NO God. >Says earl the Satanist. It's your mantra. How can you deny it? the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nep7ro$ct2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #381655 |
On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:25:35 -0500, duke wrote: > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:19:06 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:30:45 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:11:45 -0500, duke wrote: >> >><snip> >> >>>>> All prearrangements come form God. >>>> >>>>That would be the supposed god for which you have no evidence. >>> >>> No, for which YOU choose to pretend there is no God. >>> >>>>>>> You could be right. Maybe you really are a mummy. >>>>>>No. I'm a daddy. >>>>> >>>>> There you go. Only 1/2 that required. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but it's clear you lack the knowledge to grasp the point. >>>>>>>>>>You lack the sense to see that it's only your unevidenced >>>>>>>>>>belief. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And yours. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What belief do I have, liar earl? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That there is NO God >>>> >>>>>>I've told you many times that that is not my belief, liar. >>>> >>>>>>> but you lack the evidence to support your beliefs. >>>> >>>>> Yet you've never also said what was your belief. >>> >>>>My beliefs are that you're an idiot and that you owe me $55 million. >>> Check's in the mail. > >>That confirms my first belief. > > Just don't hold your breath waiting on it. Another lie, this time admitted. >>>>>>As I've no beliefs, what evidence do I need? >>>>> You reject God. > >>>>That would be the god for which you have no evidence. >>> Of course I do, > >>Then why can't you show it? Did the dog eat it? > > Nope. It's all clear. You just refuse to look at it, and so you will > be judged. I cannot refuse to look at something that has never been shown to me. >>> and he said your king should prepare for the lake of fire. >>I don't have a king, moron. > > I do. It's takes a King to have a Kindgom of God. Just another of your deluded, unevidenced, stupid beliefs. >>>>> Tons of beliefs behind that rejection. >>>>Nope. I have no beliefs about your supposed god. >>> >>> Sure, you do. You demand there is NO God. > >>Says earl the Satanist. > > It's your mantra. How can you deny it? Nope. Not mine at all. Your mantra is that there is one, I just don't believe you. > ***** > "Telling lies about evidence is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tvufgbtp7j5ket4moh8ph98u7gpgn7i2n7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #381151 |
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 17:25:33 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016 11:58:35 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:16:07 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:30:05 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>> Yet it's the challenge to those that profess exactly that - NO God. >>>> Creation, something form nothing into nothingness, >>> >>>Who claims that, other than you demented believers? >>> >>>> is solid evidence FOR the existence of God. >> >>>Nope. Merely your stupid belief. >> >> Watch out our elephant doesn't sit on you. > >What elephant would that be, liar? The one in your garage. >>>> You griks have trouble understanding that. >>>You demented morons have trouble understanding that. >> Hey, YOU cannot deny that the creation of the universe took a creator. >There was no creation. That's merely another of your delusions. Prove it. >> If you don't like calling him God, ok, but YOU cannot offer an >> alternative to the evidence, none of which you have for there being NO >> God. > >What evidence? You've never presented any, merely your stupid beliefs. Creation. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web