Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #500034 > unrolled thread
| Started by | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-14 15:49 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-06-23 17:08 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 144 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-14 15:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Tim" <me@rsabc.com> - 2015-06-15 07:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-15 08:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-15 21:43 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-15 23:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-16 12:52 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 14:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 00:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 19:20 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 21:33 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:37 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 07:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:16 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 00:12 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-16 18:48 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 19:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-17 14:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-17 23:41 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mattb. <Trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 23:03 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-06-18 02:35 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:02 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-06-18 11:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-22 12:35 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-22 09:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 19:28 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-18 06:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-17 22:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-17 15:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-18 22:43 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:21 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-19 20:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 06:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:24 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-21 09:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 14:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-22 09:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-24 08:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Sesiom <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-06-23 20:20 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-24 03:11 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-25 07:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-26 08:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-27 08:21 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-27 11:50 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-24 19:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-24 14:32 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 05:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 12:15 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-25 05:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-25 07:58 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:38 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-26 08:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:27 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-20 20:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 14:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 21:59 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 13:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 17:05 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-22 19:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-24 08:54 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 22:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-24 14:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 16:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-19 20:13 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-19 06:31 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-19 13:41 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-20 07:03 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-06-21 09:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 22:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:00 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-24 19:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-25 13:41 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-25 21:13 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-26 17:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-26 16:39 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-27 11:52 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-27 10:47 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-27 20:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 09:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-06-28 08:03 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 17:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-27 20:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 09:27 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-28 19:55 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-28 17:09 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 14:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-17 15:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-17 21:30 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:24 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-19 19:25 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 14:10 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-20 20:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2015-06-21 21:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-18 01:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-18 16:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 02:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-06-19 21:18 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:54 -0500
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 00:23 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 06:24 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jane@home.. - 2015-06-20 21:05 +1000
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:31 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-20 05:50 -0700
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 09:41 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jane@home.. - 2015-06-21 09:46 +1000
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-21 07:05 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-06-20 05:24 -0700
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:29 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 12:07 -0400
Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-22 07:56 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-20 09:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-20 21:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-21 15:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> - 2015-06-22 22:19 +0200
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-23 17:08 -0500
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 21:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mm7bvg$7sv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #501716 |
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:07:02 -0500, duke wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:44:24 -0500, duke wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:25:13 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:24:59 -0500, duke wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:23:12 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" >>>>>>> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >>>>>>>>news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" >>>>>>>>> <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >>>>>>>>> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >(snip) >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded >>>>>>>>> >> profession that there is NO God. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that >>>>>>>>> >they /know/ >>>>>>>>> >there is no God. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's what I've been saying all along. ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(It might be the second time this post appears) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've seen it lots of times. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that >>>>>>>>atheists say they /know/ God doesn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are >>>>>>> trying to claim - that you simply just not a believer. In facts, >>>>>>> you are trying to deny the existence of God. >>>>>> >>>>>>Why would I need to deny something that you haven't shown to exist? >>>>> >>>>> You don't need to deny it. We see it and have it. >>>> >>>>Thanks for the admission that it doesn't exist. >>> >>> You fuzzy brains are always receiving insult as compliment. >> >>You shitty-brained theists never admit your errors. >> >>>>>>>>> ... That takes knowledge that no man possesses. ... >>>>>>>>And so does knowing that God does exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have the evidence based on his impact on our surroundings, like >>>>>>> creation of all things. >>>>> >>>>>>Merely your stupid, unevidenced, unsubstanciated belief. >>>>>>Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >>>>> >>>>> You can't see electricity or gravity either. Yet they both exist. >>>>> How do we know? Because, like God, we know of their presence by the >>>>> effects on that which is our environment and surroundings.. >>> >>>>We can measure both electricity and gravity. How do you measure your >>>>god. >>>>Have you a godmeter? >>> >>> No you can't. >> >>Then how does my electricity supplier know how much I've used? > > He doesn't. He charges you an amount to match how many times your meter > wheel went around. All he's doing is a comparison with plant/fuel/other > expenses and correlates it to a meter. That's all it is. A correlation. Correlation to a measurement. >><snip bullshit> >>> Even gravity can't be determined without a huge gravitational constant >>> applied. >>But we can still measure it. > > No, you can't. The gravitational constant Is a huge fudge factor in the > equation. Only in your stupid opinion. >>> And so we determine the presence of God by his attributes - supreme >>> creator occupying no space or time.. > >>Thanks for agreeing that your supposed god character cannot be measured >>in any way, almost as if it doesn't exist. > > That's right, God cannot be measures. But it's a guarantee that God > created us. How come? >>>>>>>>> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that >>>>>>>>> you don't believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that >>>>>>>>> is available to us all. >>>>>>>>Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. >>>>>>> Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. >>>>> >>>>>>You hide that evidence from us and merely show your beliefs. >>>>> >>>>> When you sick a hairpin in a electrical socket, you can say you just >>>>> tripped. >>> >>>>Thanks for admitting that you hide that evidence from us and merely >>>>show your beliefs. >>> And yours that there is no god. > >>But I know, and can prove, there are some claimed gods. I don't believe >>in any of them. Where is my claim that there are no gods, liar? > > Sure there are some other claimed gods. Anything that you let totally > take over your life is your (g), lie a bottle of booze, food, gambling, > porn, etc. I'm taslking about physically existing gods that I don't believe in, not your habits. > Are you a porn freak? No. Are you? >>>>>>>>> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is so. I >>>>>>>>> >/believe/ that God doesn't exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally, you are an agnostic. There's no such thing as a >>>>>>>>> legitimate atheist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of >>>>>>>>them, >>>>>>>>and I promise you I'm as legit as it gets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the >>>>>>> existence of God. >>>>> >>>>>>Why would I need to deny something that you haven't shown to exist? >>>>> >>>>> You're shook up Because you can't see what we see. >>> >>>>Why would I be shook up for not seeing something that is supposedly >>>>invisible? Your evidence for it is also invisible. > >>> Show me a bucket of electricity or a pint of gravity. >>Show me that you're sane. > > Here I am, justa kicking your ass. Q.E.D. > ***** > "Paedophilia 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 | 2015-06-23 17:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <boljoa1lb2fvic6o5opk2vrdoocqq4d6nd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501743 |
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 21:57:04 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 15:07:02 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:10:52 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:44:24 -0500, duke wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:25:13 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:24:59 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:30:55 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:23:12 -0500, duke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" >>>>>>>> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >>>>>>>>>news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" >>>>>>>>>> <malte...@forgitit.dk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >>>>>>>>>> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com... >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >(snip) >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded >>>>>>>>>> >> profession that there is NO God. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that >>>>>>>>>> >they /know/ >>>>>>>>>> >there is no God. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's what I've been saying all along. ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>(It might be the second time this post appears) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've seen it lots of times. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that >>>>>>>>>atheists say they /know/ God doesn't exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are >>>>>>>> trying to claim - that you simply just not a believer. In facts, >>>>>>>> you are trying to deny the existence of God. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why would I need to deny something that you haven't shown to exist? >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't need to deny it. We see it and have it. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks for the admission that it doesn't exist. >>>> >>>> You fuzzy brains are always receiving insult as compliment. >>> >>>You shitty-brained theists never admit your errors. >>> >>>>>>>>>> ... That takes knowledge that no man possesses. ... >>>>>>>>>And so does knowing that God does exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have the evidence based on his impact on our surroundings, like >>>>>>>> creation of all things. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Merely your stupid, unevidenced, unsubstanciated belief. >>>>>>>Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't see electricity or gravity either. Yet they both exist. >>>>>> How do we know? Because, like God, we know of their presence by the >>>>>> effects on that which is our environment and surroundings.. >>>> >>>>>We can measure both electricity and gravity. How do you measure your >>>>>god. >>>>>Have you a godmeter? >>>> >>>> No you can't. >>> >>>Then how does my electricity supplier know how much I've used? >> >> He doesn't. He charges you an amount to match how many times your meter >> wheel went around. All he's doing is a comparison with plant/fuel/other >> expenses and correlates it to a meter. That's all it is. A correlation. > >Correlation to a measurement. Correlation to a definition. The only measurement is a needle deflection. >>><snip bullshit> >>>> Even gravity can't be determined without a huge gravitational constant >>>> applied. >>>But we can still measure it. >> No, you can't. The gravitational constant Is a huge fudge factor in the >> equation. >Only in your stupid opinion. You didn't know about the gravitational constant, did you? >>>> And so we determine the presence of God by his attributes - supreme >>>> creator occupying no space or time.. >> >>>Thanks for agreeing that your supposed god character cannot be measured >>>in any way, almost as if it doesn't exist. >> >> That's right, God cannot be measures. But it's a guarantee that God >> created us. >How come? No alternative available. >>>>>>>>>> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that >>>>>>>>>> you don't believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that >>>>>>>>>> is available to us all. >>>>>>>>>Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. >>>>>>>> Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. >>>>>> >>>>>>>You hide that evidence from us and merely show your beliefs. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you sick a hairpin in a electrical socket, you can say you just >>>>>> tripped. >>>> >>>>>Thanks for admitting that you hide that evidence from us and merely >>>>>show your beliefs. >>>> And yours that there is no god. >> >>>But I know, and can prove, there are some claimed gods. I don't believe >>>in any of them. Where is my claim that there are no gods, liar? >> >> Sure there are some other claimed gods. Anything that you let totally >> take over your life is your (g), lie a bottle of booze, food, gambling, >> porn, etc. >I'm taslking about physically existing gods that I don't believe in, not >your habits. Fact is fact. Your (g)od is anything that you follow to the detriment of all other things in your live. Your (g)od might be a bottle of bourbon. >> Are you a porn freak? >No. Are you? Nope. MY (G)od is God almighty. >>>>>>>>>> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is so. I >>>>>>>>>> >/believe/ that God doesn't exist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Finally, you are an agnostic. There's no such thing as a >>>>>>>>>> legitimate atheist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of >>>>>>>>>them, >>>>>>>>>and I promise you I'm as legit as it gets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the >>>>>>>> existence of God. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Why would I need to deny something that you haven't shown to exist? >>>>>> >>>>>> You're shook up Because you can't see what we see. >>>> >>>>>Why would I be shook up for not seeing something that is supposedly >>>>>invisible? Your evidence for it is also invisible. >> >>>> Show me a bucket of electricity or a pint of gravity. >>>Show me that you're sane. >> Here I am, justa kicking your ass. >Q.E.D. You can't make any inroads. I rest my case. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 01:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55820308$0$23209$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk> |
| In reply to | #500767 |
"duke" skrev i meddelelsen news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> > wrote: > > >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen > >news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com... > >> > >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen > >> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com... > >> > > >> >(snip) > >> > > >> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded > >> >> profession > >> >> that > >> >> there is NO God. > >> > > >> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that they > >> >/know/ > >> >there is no God. > >> > >> That's what I've been saying all along. ... > > >(It might be the second time this post appears) > > I've seen it lots of times. > > >So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that atheists say > >they /know/ God doesn't exist. > > I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are trying > to > claim - that you simply just not a believer. ... Bingo! I simply don't believe. It doesn't matter one bit what you want to call me. Atheist or agnostic. You can call me Al, for all I care. As long as you don't say that I claim to /know/ there is no god. > ... In facts, you are trying to deny > the existence of God. I'm trying no such thing. The moment I turn off my newsreader 'gods and whispers and theo-logic' is no longer part of my life. You're my 'reality video game'. I know you're serious, and you live a life of faith and, what to me, is a childish belief in magic. And I poke fun at it. It's free, you keep coming back for more, so why not. > > >> ... That takes knowledge that no man > >> possesses. ... > >And so does knowing that God does exist. > > We have the evidence based on his impact on our surroundings, like > creation of > all things. Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it? > > >> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that you > >> don't > >> believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that is available to us > >> all. > > >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. > > Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once. You saying it is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only God can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can come from nothing. Heeheehee'. Except that it can. I could make you a long list of links to interesting articles and books and very decent youtube videos that explain it. But we both know that'd be a waste of my time. (If you were half as smart as some of the AI characters in modern video games, you would now try to find some material yourself, go over it, use 'logic and reason' and point out what the scientists have gotten wrong. That is how you score points in the game you and I are playing.) > > >> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is > >> >so. I /believe/ that God doesn't exist. > > >> Finally, you are an agnostic. There's no such thing as a legitimate > >> atheist. > > >An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of them, and > >I > >promise you I'm as legit as it gets. > > No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the existence > of > God. No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously, here is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it? We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both accepted that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So why are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'? (snip) > >Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good > >as > >gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%. > >'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us. > > When God knocks on your door and "Surprise, I've come to get you and send > you > where you don't want to go", don't say I didn't try to help you. We have come full circle. Back to the 'threat of Hell'. 'Congratulations! MR wins on points. Do you want to play again?' Sure. -- Malte Runz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-18 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <spd6oap808ul9nhhdlhog9l4ophpfi38o8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #500808 |
On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:30:20 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote: >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com... >> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> >> wrote: >> >> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >> >news:deo0oa9qjit0va3du8eobrouc8sb23fkko@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:48:59 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte...@forgitit.dk> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >> >> >news:f5qrna1pptlcpdp0oinj114p8p2tjf6ufq@4ax.com... >> >> > >> >> >(snip) >> >> > >> >> >> When, oh when, will you losers try to support your unfounded >> >> >> profession >> >> >> that >> >> >> there is NO God. >> >> > >> >> >I seriously doubt that you can find anybody who'll claim that they >> >> >/know/ >> >> >there is no God. >> >> >> >> That's what I've been saying all along. ... >> >> >(It might be the second time this post appears) >> >> I've seen it lots of times. >> >> >So have atheists. It's only theists like you who claim, that atheists say >> >they /know/ God doesn't exist. >> >> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are trying >> to >> claim - that you simply just not a believer. ... > >Bingo! I simply don't believe. It doesn't matter one bit what you want to >call me. Atheist or agnostic. You can call me Al, for all I care. As long as >you don't say that I claim to /know/ there is no god. It doesn't matter to me either. But this very ng enjoys revealing it's atheism that is actually agnosticism. An atheist rejects the existence of God; an agnostic find the evidence unconvincing. You see what I see. I believe, you doubt. >> ... In facts, you are trying to deny the existence of God. >I'm trying no such thing. The moment I turn off my newsreader 'gods and >whispers and theo-logic' is no longer part of my life. You're my 'reality >video game'. I know you're serious, and you live a life of faith and, what >to me, is a childish belief in magic. And I poke fun at it. It's free, you >keep coming back for more, so why not. Just as I poke a little fun at you but more seriously try to help you. You don't have to believe me. I believe. Your belief that atheism has no disastrous implications on your eternal demise is countered by mine that says that is not true. You cannot convince me that all that is of us is just an accident taking place 13.7 billion years ago. You are free to believe as you wish. >Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our >surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it? Creation, existence. The most basic question of "why"? Is there a "why". >> >> ... Hence, with no evidence, the best you guys can say is that you >> >> don't >> >> believe, like in you don't believe the evidence that is available to us >> >> all. >> >> >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. >> >> Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. >Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once. Actually I said it's "evidence of". But I believe that I once made the statement that the evidence is so strong that it could almost be called "proof". >You saying it >is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only >God can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can come >from nothing. Heeheehee'. Exactly. Just don't ask me how God did it. >Except that it can. I could make you a long list of links to interesting >articles and books and very decent youtube videos that explain it. But we >both know that'd be a waste of my time. Explain what? I like the one about quantum fluctuations when in truth there was no nothing and no place for a quantum fluctuation to exist before creation. >(If you were half as smart as some of the AI characters in modern video >games, you would now try to find some material yourself, go over it, use >'logic and reason' and point out what the scientists have gotten wrong. That >is how you score points in the game you and I are playing.) God revealed it to us. >> >> >Personally, I settle for a 99,99999% certainty that it is >> >> >so. I /believe/ that God doesn't exist. >> >> >> Finally, you are an agnostic. There's no such thing as a legitimate >> >> atheist. >> >An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in gods. I'm one of them, and >> >I >> >promise you I'm as legit as it gets. >> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the existence >> of God. >No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously, here >is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it? I see it. Hence the evidence is. You just refuse to see it. >We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both accepted >that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So why >are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'? You choose to deny that evidence really is evidence. >> >Have you ever been abroad? To my neck of the woods? Religion is as good >> >as >> >gone in all aspects of society. I'm already living the virtual 100%. >> >'Whispering spirits' won't impress any of us. >> When God knocks on your door and "Surprise, I've come to get you and send >> you >> where you don't want to go", don't say I didn't try to help you. >We have come full circle. Back to the 'threat of Hell'. It's what God revealed to us. Specifically that mankind is his creation given free will to follow God in love or to turn away and reject God's call to love. >'Congratulations! MR wins on points. Do you want to play again?' >Sure. Sure. You went down in flames and still don't understand it. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 02:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5584b3e0$0$23214$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk> |
| In reply to | #501047 |
"duke" skrev i meddelelsen news:spd6oap808ul9nhhdlhog9l4ophpfi38o8@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:30:20 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> > wrote: > > >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen > >news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com... > >> > >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" > >> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> > >> wrote: > >> (snip) > >> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are > >> trying > >> to > >> claim - that you simply just not a believer. ... > > > >Bingo! I simply don't believe. It doesn't matter one bit what you want to > >call me. Atheist or agnostic. You can call me Al, for all I care. As long > >as > >you don't say that I claim to /know/ there is no god. > > It doesn't matter to me either. ... Yet, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tell atheists that should call themselves agnostic. > ... But this very ng enjoys revealing it's atheism > that is actually agnosticism. An atheist rejects the existence of God; an > agnostic find the evidence unconvincing. You see what I see. I believe, > you > doubt. > > >> ... In facts, you are trying to deny the existence of God. > > >I'm trying no such thing. The moment I turn off my newsreader 'gods and > >whispers and theo-logic' is no longer part of my life. You're my 'reality > >video game'. I know you're serious, and you live a life of faith and, > >what > >to me, is a childish belief in magic. And I poke fun at it. It's free, > >you > >keep coming back for more, so why not. > > Just as I poke a little fun at you but more seriously try to help you. You > don't have to believe me. I believe. ... You have shown a level of disresrespect other people that makes it impossible for me to believe you. > ... Your belief that atheism has no > disastrous implications on your eternal demise is countered by mine that > says > that is not true. ... Here we have it! 'Atheism has disastrous implications.' The mere act of not believing is a ticket to Hell. No matter what kind of life one might have lived. Even a lifetime of good deeds. Nothing counts. It's the non-belief itself. But back on 09.06.2015 you wrote, when we were on that topic (atheists doing good things): > ...We're judged by the same presence of our actions And I replied: "Interesting. I'm sure this bit will come in very handy one of these days." Told you! > >Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our > >surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it? > > Creation, existence. The most basic question of "why"? Is there a "why". Blah, blah, blah. Which one is it? (snip) > >> >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. > >> > >> Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. > > >Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once. > > Actually I said it's "evidence of". ... No you didn't. > ... But I believe that I once made the > statement that the evidence is so strong that it could almost be called > "proof". A while back I promised you, that I'd be there every time you'd try to deny that drivel you spew. Here is what you wrote on 05.31.2015: > Creation is guaranteed PROOF of a creator. Not "evidence of" almost "proof". No. "guaranteed PROOF". That's a smackdown, duke. Feel free to tap out. This is what I do to you. Get used to it. > >You saying it > >is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only > >God can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can > >come > >from nothing. Heeheehee'. > > Exactly. Just don't ask me how God did it. If you don't know how, why do you believe God did it? (snip) > >> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the > >> existence > >> of God. > > >No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously, > >here > >is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it? > > I see it. Hence the evidence is. You just refuse to see it. Why would I refuse to see anything? There are plenty of 'holy scriptures' claiming the existence of thousands of gods and creation myths. They are not evidence. And the sacred whispers sure aren't either. If there were evidence of a 'creator of the Universe' I'd have no problem accepting it. But there isn't. Only ancient books and people being convinced that the truth lies within their pages. > >We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both > >accepted > >that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So > >why > >are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'? > > You choose to deny that evidence really is evidence. Don't flatter yourself. Holy books and whispers are not enough for me. How much time would you spend on 'denying' that Hagar the Horrible is a historical figure? Wouldn't you rather just kick back and watch at the dickhead believing it neutering himself. That's what I do... duke. (snip) -- Malte Runz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-19 21:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <scg9oal1lh468cvb90n23afsn0s76uvqna@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501332 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:29:25 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote: >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >news:spd6oap808ul9nhhdlhog9l4ophpfi38o8@4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:30:20 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> >> wrote: >> >> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >> >news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" >> >> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> >> >> wrote: >> >> >(snip) > >> >> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are The same old deliberately and arrogantly nasty, personal lie >> >> trying to claim - that you simply just not a believer. ... The in-your-face personal liar knows it's not just a claim. >> >Bingo! I simply don't believe. It doesn't matter one bit what you want to >> >call me. Atheist or agnostic. You can call me Al, for all I care. As long >> >as you don't say that I claim to /know/ there is no god. >> >> It doesn't matter to me either. ... So why does the psychopath who has no reason even to be here, keep lying about us to our faces? >Yet, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tell atheists that should call >themselves agnostic. Because he is a truly horrible person. >> ... But this very ng enjoys revealing it's atheism >> that is actually agnosticism. Liar. >> An atheist rejects the existence of God; an Until the proven serial liar demonstrates his pretend friend, there is nothing to deny, >> agnostic find the evidence unconvincing. WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE was the proven serial liar lying about? >> You see what I see. I believe, >> you doubt. SO FAR THERE IS NOTHING TO DOUBT, and the proven serial liar knows this, because it has been explained to him over and over again, >> >> ... In facts, you are trying to deny the existence of God. WHAT FUCKING EXISTENCE OF WHAT FUCKING GOD? >> >I'm trying no such thing. The moment I turn off my newsreader 'gods and >> >whispers and theo-logic' is no longer part of my life. You're my 'reality >> >video game'. I know you're serious, and you live a life of faith and, >> >what to me, is a childish belief in magic. And I poke fun at it. It's free, >> >you keep coming back for more, so why not. >> >> Just as I poke a little fun at you but more seriously try to help you. Liar. Arrogantly stupid idiot. >> You >> don't have to believe me. I believe. ... SO KEEP YOUR MINDLESS NONSENSE. YOUR STUPIDITY AND YOUR ARROGANT RUDENESS YO YOURSELF. >You have shown a level of disresrespect other people that makes it >impossible for me to believe you. He's exempt form showing courtesy and respect for others - he's a Christian. >> ... Your belief that atheism has no The liar does it once again: he pretends that having no reason to believe something means you believe some straw man opposite, when you actually don't even give it a thought for pretty much the same reason he doesn't give reincarnation, Valhalla, Hades etc a thought. >> disastrous implications on your eternal demise is countered by mine that WHAT FUCKING DISASTROUS IMPLICATIONS ON WHAT FUCKING ETERNAL DEMISE? >> says >> that is not true. ... Because it's his dishonest straw man, and because he lives in his own little fantasy world. >Here we have it! 'Atheism has disastrous implications.' The mere act of not >believing is a ticket to Hell. No matter what kind of life one might have >lived. Even a lifetime of good deeds. Nothing counts. It's the non-belief >itself. He's more than seriously mentally ill - we've been correcting him about what atheism means for something like twenty years, and he has been religiously harassing us, lying about us to us, etc in a supposedly theism-free zone for all that time. >But back on 09.06.2015 you wrote, when we were on that topic (atheists doing >good things): > >> ...We're judged by the same presence of our actions > >And I replied: "Interesting. I'm sure this bit will come in very handy one >of these days." > >Told you! He should be in the psych ward, to protect himself from the results of his own behaviour towards others. >> >Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our >> >surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it? >> >> Creation, existence. The most basic question of "why"? Is there a "why". Idiot. >Blah, blah, blah. Which one is it? > >(snip) > >> >> >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. >> >> >> >> Yet we have the evidence Liar. If there were any you wouldn't just say there was, you'd provide it. >> >> you first try to hide from. The personally nasty lie - the only person here hiding from anything is Liarboi Puke. >> >Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once. >> >> Actually I said it's "evidence of". ... So you lied. Again. >No you didn't. > >> ... But I believe that I once made the >> statement that the evidence is so strong that it could almost be called >> "proof". WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE? NONE OF YOU LIARS HAS *E*V*E*R* PROVIDED ANY. >A while back I promised you, that I'd be there every time you'd try to deny >that drivel you spew. Here is what you wrote on 05.31.2015: > >> Creation is guaranteed PROOF of a creator. So he lied when he claimed he only said "evidence of". >Not "evidence of" almost "proof". No. "guaranteed PROOF". That's a >smackdown, duke. Feel free to tap out. Don't ever expect any honesty from this totally amoral sociopath. >This is what I do to you. Get used to it. > >> >You saying it >> >is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only >> >God WHAT FUCKING GOD? >> > can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can >> >come from nothing. Heeheehee'. The pig-ignorant moron has never heard of Quantum Mechanics or the Casimir effect. >> Exactly. Just don't ask me how God did it. WHAT FUCKING GOD? >If you don't know how, why do you believe God did it? Childhood brainwashing and a lack of proper education. >(snip) > >> >> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses *L*I*A*R* >> >> to deny/reject the Liar. >> >> existence of God. WHAT FUCKING EXISTENCE OF WHAT FUCKING GOD? The psycho knows perfectly well that outside his religion, it never reaches the level something to deny or reject - because neither he nor any of the other brainwashed morons have ever demonstrated that it is anything more than somebody else's religious belief. >> >No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously, >> >here is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it? >> >> I see it. Hence the evidence is. You just refuse to see it. WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE is the proven serial liar lying about our refusing to see? None of these in-your-face, personally nasty liars have _ever_ provided any. >Why would I refuse to see anything? There are plenty of 'holy scriptures' >claiming the existence of thousands of gods and creation myths. They are not >evidence. And the sacred whispers sure aren't either. If there were evidence >of a 'creator of the Universe' I'd have no problem accepting it. But there >isn't. Only ancient books and people being convinced that the truth lies >within their pages. His childhood brainwashing is that the Bible is evidence. But that is simply part of the same self-referential loop for which there is no intersection with reality. >> >We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both >> >accepted >> >that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So >> >why >> >are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'? Because he's a complete jerk. >> You choose *L*I*A*R* >> to deny that evidence *L*I*A*R* >> really is evidence. WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE, liar? >Don't flatter yourself. Holy books and whispers are not enough for me. How >much time would you spend on 'denying' that Hagar the Horrible is a >historical figure? Wouldn't you rather just kick back and watch at the >dickhead believing it neutering himself. That's what I do... duke. The ancient Greeks believed that the stories told in Homer were evidence, Hindus believe the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads are evidence, Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is evidence - in exactly the same way Christians only believe their Bible is evidence. But none of these are - in the outside world beyond their respective religions. He is mind-bogglingy and nastily stupid. > >(snip)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1fvaoad7v52ak2puqlcbgbh0946rk0tiok@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501359 |
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:18:52 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:29:25 +0200, "Malte Runz"
><malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote:
>
>>"duke" skrev i meddelelsen
>>news:spd6oap808ul9nhhdlhog9l4ophpfi38o8@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:30:20 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen
>>> >news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com...
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz"
>>> >> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>(snip)
>>
>>> >> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are
>
>The same old deliberately and arrogantly nasty, personal lie
I see no lie on my part, just continuing self-damning actions on your part.
>>> It doesn't matter to me either. ...
>So why does the psychopath who has no reason even to be here, keep
>lying about us to our faces?
You're speaking to yourself.
>>Yet, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tell atheists that should call
>>themselves agnostic.
>
>Because he is a truly horrible person.
For trying to help you. For shame.
>>> agnostic find the evidence unconvincing.
>
>WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE was the proven serial liar lying about?
>
>>> You see what I see. I believe,
>>> you doubt.
>
>SO FAR THERE IS NOTHING TO DOUBT, and the proven serial liar knows
>this, because it has been explained to him over and over again,
The evidence.
You
>>> don't have to believe me. I believe. ...
>SO KEEP YOUR MINDLESS NONSENSE. YOUR STUPIDITY AND YOUR ARROGANT
>RUDENESS YO YOURSELF.
>The liar does it once again: he pretends that having no reason to
>believe something means you believe some straw man opposite, when you
>actually don't even give it a thought for pretty much the same reason
>he doesn't give reincarnation, Valhalla, Hades etc a thought.
You dudes sure do smoke a lot of bad rope.
>
>>> disastrous implications on your eternal demise is countered by mine that
>
>WHAT FUCKING DISASTROUS IMPLICATIONS ON WHAT FUCKING ETERNAL DEMISE?
>
>>> says
>>> that is not true. ...
>
>Because it's his dishonest straw man, and because he lives in his own
>little fantasy world.
>
>>Here we have it! 'Atheism has disastrous implications.' The mere act of not
>>believing is a ticket to Hell. No matter what kind of life one might have
>>lived. Even a lifetime of good deeds. Nothing counts. It's the non-belief
>>itself.
>
>He's more than seriously mentally ill - we've been correcting him
>about what atheism means for something like twenty years, and he has
>been religiously harassing us, lying about us to us, etc in a
>supposedly theism-free zone for all that time.
>
>>But back on 09.06.2015 you wrote, when we were on that topic (atheists doing
>>good things):
>>
>>> ...We're judged by the same presence of our actions
>>
>>And I replied: "Interesting. I'm sure this bit will come in very handy one
>>of these days."
>>
>>Told you!
>
>He should be in the psych ward, to protect himself from the results of
>his own behaviour towards others.
>
>>> >Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our
>>> >surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it?
>>>
>>> Creation, existence. The most basic question of "why"? Is there a "why".
>
>Idiot.
>
>>Blah, blah, blah. Which one is it?
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>> >> >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet we have the evidence
>
>Liar. If there were any you wouldn't just say there was, you'd provide
>it.
>
>>> >> you first try to hide from.
>
>The personally nasty lie - the only person here hiding from anything
>is Liarboi Puke.
>
>>> >Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once.
>>>
>>> Actually I said it's "evidence of". ...
>
>So you lied.
>
>Again.
>
>>No you didn't.
>>
>>> ... But I believe that I once made the
>>> statement that the evidence is so strong that it could almost be called
>>> "proof".
>
>WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE? NONE OF YOU LIARS HAS *E*V*E*R* PROVIDED ANY.
>
>>A while back I promised you, that I'd be there every time you'd try to deny
>>that drivel you spew. Here is what you wrote on 05.31.2015:
>>
>>> Creation is guaranteed PROOF of a creator.
>
>So he lied when he claimed he only said "evidence of".
>
>>Not "evidence of" almost "proof". No. "guaranteed PROOF". That's a
>>smackdown, duke. Feel free to tap out.
>
>Don't ever expect any honesty from this totally amoral sociopath.
>
>>This is what I do to you. Get used to it.
>>
>>> >You saying it
>>> >is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only
>>> >God
>
>WHAT FUCKING GOD?
>
>>> > can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can
>>> >come from nothing. Heeheehee'.
>
>The pig-ignorant moron has never heard of Quantum Mechanics or the
>Casimir effect.
>
>>> Exactly. Just don't ask me how God did it.
>
>WHAT FUCKING GOD?
>
>>If you don't know how, why do you believe God did it?
>
>Childhood brainwashing and a lack of proper education.
>
>>(snip)
>>
>>> >> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses
>
>*L*I*A*R*
>
>>> >> to deny/reject the
>
>Liar.
>
>>> >> existence of God.
>
>WHAT FUCKING EXISTENCE OF WHAT FUCKING GOD?
>
>The psycho knows perfectly well that outside his religion, it never
>reaches the level something to deny or reject - because neither he
>nor any of the other brainwashed morons have ever demonstrated that it
>is anything more than somebody else's religious belief.
>
>>> >No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously,
>>> >here is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it?
>>>
>>> I see it. Hence the evidence is. You just refuse to see it.
>
>WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE is the proven serial liar lying about our
>refusing to see?
>
>None of these in-your-face, personally nasty liars have _ever_
>provided any.
>
>>Why would I refuse to see anything? There are plenty of 'holy scriptures'
>>claiming the existence of thousands of gods and creation myths. They are not
>>evidence. And the sacred whispers sure aren't either. If there were evidence
>>of a 'creator of the Universe' I'd have no problem accepting it. But there
>>isn't. Only ancient books and people being convinced that the truth lies
>>within their pages.
>
>His childhood brainwashing is that the Bible is evidence. But that is
>simply part of the same self-referential loop for which there is no
>intersection with reality.
>
>>> >We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both
>>> >accepted
>>> >that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So
>>> >why
>>> >are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'?
>
>Because he's a complete jerk.
>
>>> You choose
>
>*L*I*A*R*
>
>>> to deny that evidence
>
>*L*I*A*R*
>
>>> really is evidence.
>
>WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE, liar?
>
>>Don't flatter yourself. Holy books and whispers are not enough for me. How
>>much time would you spend on 'denying' that Hagar the Horrible is a
>>historical figure? Wouldn't you rather just kick back and watch at the
>>dickhead believing it neutering himself. That's what I do... duke.
>
>The ancient Greeks believed that the stories told in Homer were
>evidence, Hindus believe the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads are
>evidence, Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is evidence - in exactly
>the same way Christians only believe their Bible is evidence.
>
>But none of these are - in the outside world beyond their respective
>religions.
>
>He is mind-bogglingy and nastily stupid.
>>
>>(snip)
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 00:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <xV5hx.27942$ji3.14611@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #501332 |
On 06/19/2015 09:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> For a "religion" (i.e. lifestyle) to dominate,
> it must breed more and die less.
>
> By this measure, Christianity has done well;
> however, it's ruthless and inhumane, like the Pope.
>
> My vasectomy was the best thing I ever did for myself
> because it helped me respect woman and kids.
>
> Quoting "PBS.ORG/earth-a-new-wild/episode-plains/reindeer/" ＜＜
>
> The practice of castrating [[reindeers]] has helped.
>
> A castrated male, known as the gentleman of the tundra,
> won’t waste his energy on fighting for reproductive rights,
> and therefore will use his strength
> and enormous size to dig through the snow.
>
> The ancient castration technique of biting
> is being studied and brought back because it is
> less severe than using tongs or other modern methods.
> Using modern methods, some male deer can become listless and lazy.
>
> Scientists believe that with the biting method,
> the deer will still produce enough testosterone to remain vigorous.
>
> Reindeer are one of the last species to be domesticated by man —
> and are only semi domesticated.
>
> Castration is a key component in domesticating a herding animal. ＞＞
Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this vasectomy thing.
You should have decided a lat early and gone for the full castrati.
Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been
sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man!
Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati
decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you.
Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of
no change of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would be!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 06:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm3etb$o7h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501368 |
On 6/20/2015 12:23 AM, benj wrote: > > Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this vasectomy thing. > You should have decided a lat early and gone for the full castrati. > Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been > sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man! > Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati > decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you. > Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of > no change of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would be! Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. Never fuck with success. Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane@home.. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 21:05 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <63iaoapn4sap5m1c80nsueh3aokhmehcug@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501401 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 06:24:03 -0400, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote: >On 6/20/2015 12:23 AM, benj wrote: >> >> Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this vasectomy thing. >> You should have decided a lat early and gone for the full castrati. >> Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been >> sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man! >> Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati >> decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you. >> Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of >> no change of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would be! > > >Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! >I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. > >Never fuck with success. > >Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" >Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? You seem rather confused. I know lots of men who have had vasectomies and they all have very efficient dicks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 07:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm3irt$5ae$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501407 |
On 6/20/2015 7:05 AM, Jane@home.. wrote: > >> Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! >> I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. >> >> Never fuck with success. >> >> Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" >> Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? > > You seem rather confused. I know lots of men who have had vasectomies and they > all have very efficient dicks. That's all well and good, Jane, but *I* don't want to be the exception that proves the rule. Condoms aren't that difficult to put on. You can't UN-ring a bell. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 05:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm3nj4$lk4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501414 |
<Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> "HVAC" Harlow Campbell wrote: >>> Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! >>> Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" >>> Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? >> Jane@home.. wrote: >> You seem rather confused. I know lots of men who have had >> vasectomies and they all have very efficient dicks. > Harlow Campbell wrote: > That's all well and good, Jane, but *I* don't want to be the exception > that proves the rule. Condoms aren't that difficult to put on. > You can't UN-ring a bell. > hanson wrote: Harlow, don't argue. You are slow on the uptake. Jane invited you to be one of those "very efficient dicks" in her stable. Show her that you are... the very best!... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 09:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm3qe9$v9p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501427 |
On 6/20/2015 8:50 AM, hanson wrote: > > Harlow Campbell wrote: >> That's all well and good, Jane, but *I* don't want to be the exception >> that proves the rule. Condoms aren't that difficult to put on. >> You can't UN-ring a bell. >> > hanson wrote: > Harlow, don't argue. You are slow on the uptake. Jane invited you to be > one of those "very efficient dicks" in her stable. Show her that you > are... the very best!... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO While I am sure that Jane is a beautiful woman, I am almost 100% faithful to my girlfriend, Felony. Plus Fel is an excellent shot, so... -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane@home.. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 09:46 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mluboat3dak50bi62h1gehlnbnvcdkn322@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501427 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:50:06 -0700, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote: >Harlow Campbell wrote: >> That's all well and good, Jane, but *I* don't want to be the exception >> that proves the rule. Condoms aren't that difficult to put on. >> You can't UN-ring a bell. >> >hanson wrote: >Harlow, don't argue. You are slow on the uptake. Jane invited >you to be one of those "very efficient dicks" in her stable. >Show her that you are... the very best!... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO Mr Hanson, I can assure you I would not have anything to do with a silly man who uses condoms. He must be very ignorant. Maybe he thinks a vasectomy means a removal of the testicles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 07:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm65lf$ell$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501575 |
On 6/20/2015 7:46 PM, Jane@home.. wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 05:50:06 -0700, "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote: > > >> Harlow Campbell wrote: >>> That's all well and good, Jane, but *I* don't want to be the exception >>> that proves the rule. Condoms aren't that difficult to put on. >>> You can't UN-ring a bell. >>> >> hanson wrote: >> Harlow, don't argue. You are slow on the uptake. Jane invited >> you to be one of those "very efficient dicks" in her stable. >> Show her that you are... the very best!... ahahaha... ROTFLMAO > > Mr Hanson, I can assure you I would not have anything to do with a silly man > who uses condoms. He must be very ignorant. Maybe he thinks a vasectomy means > a removal of the testicles. ...A lil tear runs down Harlow's face ;( -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 05:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-34E05C.05240420062015@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #501407 |
In article <63iaoapn4sap5m1c80nsueh3aokhmehcug@4ax.com>, Jane@home.. wrote: > On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 06:24:03 -0400, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On 6/20/2015 12:23 AM, benj wrote: > >> > >> Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this vasectomy thing. > >> You should have decided a lat early and gone for the full castrati. > >> Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been > >> sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man! > >> Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati > >> decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you. > >> Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of > >> no change of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would be! > > > > > >Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! > >I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. > > > >Never fuck with success. > > > >Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" > >Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? > > You seem rather confused. I know lots of men who have had vasectomies and they > all have very efficient dicks. They have no clue what a vasectomy is. They think castration is a clear and present danger. This is what comes from not teaching children how their bodies work. -- JD Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 08:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm3m7n$gno$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501424 |
On 6/20/2015 8:24 AM, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >>> Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! >>> I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. >>> >>> Never fuck with success. >>> >>> Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" >>> Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? >> >> You seem rather confused. I know lots of men who have had vasectomies and they >> all have very efficient dicks. > > > They have no clue what a vasectomy is. They think castration is a clear > and present danger. This is what comes from not teaching children how > their bodies work. To be honest I don't even like to think, never mind talk, about a knife near my schlong. It makes me queasy. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 12:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <Xcghx.29897$ji3.20060@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #501401 |
On 06/20/2015 06:24 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 6/20/2015 12:23 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>> Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this vasectomy thing.
>> You should have decided a lot earlier and gone for the full castrati.
>> Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been
>> sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man!
>> Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati
>> decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you.
>> Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of
>> no chance of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would be!
>
>
> Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON!
> I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right.
>
> Never fuck with success.
>
> Like what if the doctor says "Oops!"
> Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick?
>
Anthropology lesson (Yes I know many things); Male circumcision is a
long-standing African custom (as is female "circumcision" but that's a
story for a different day) Unlike the Jewish custom right after birth,
in Africa it is a rite of passage into manhood as a teen. It is
generally discouraged by governments because of unsanitary conditions
etc. but is well ingrained and persists.
Anyway, Not too long ago, the reluctant teen to be man trekked off into
the bush with the witch doctor and a crowd of "well-wishers". The
ceremony begins and then something goes wrong and the "operator" slips
and cuts off the entire Charlie Tokus. Blood everywhere! Big uproar.
Once onlookers understand what had just happened, the crowd attacks the
cutter killing him on the spot. (African culture has a rather direct way
of dealing with getting pissed) The kid was hauled to a modern hospital
where he survived, but still came up a bit short in the deal. Better he
had stayed a kid.
Just trying to educate the world one person at a time, Harlow.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Pope is ruthless and inhumane. |
| Message-ID | <mm97mm$se5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #501472 |
"benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/20/2015 06:24 AM, HVAC wrote: >> On 6/20/2015 12:23 AM, benj wrote: >>> >>> Jeff Relf Rolf you are really a day late and dollar short on this >>> vasectomy thing. >>> You should have decided a lot earlier and gone for the full castrati. >>> Think of the acclaim with people able to hear opera like it has not been >>> sung in centuries. Women's roles sung with force an power of a man! >>> Awesome! I know wormley sings and he is very sad that the castrati >>> decision was never made for him at the appropriate time. Same for you. >>> Plus, in addition to the fame for you, the world reaps the benefits of >>> no chance of any Rolf pro-creation. What a wonderful world that would >>> be! >> HVAC Harlow Campbell wrote: >> Someone comes near my dick with a knife and it's fucking ON! >> I'll hit him with so many lefts, he'll beg me for a right. >> Never fuck with success. >> Like what if the doctor says "Oops!" >> Sure, you can sue. But wtf good is money if you gots no more dick? >> Ben Jacoby wrote: > Anthropology lesson (Yes I know many things); Male circumcision is a > long-standing African custom (as is female "circumcision" but that's a > story for a different day) Unlike the Jewish custom right after birth, in > Africa it is a rite of passage into manhood as a teen. It is generally > discouraged by governments because of unsanitary conditions etc. but is > well ingrained and persists. > > Anyway, Not too long ago, the reluctant teen to be man trekked off into > the bush with the witch doctor and a crowd of "well-wishers". The ceremony > begins and then something goes wrong and the "operator" slips and cuts off > the entire Charlie Tokus. Blood everywhere! Big uproar. Once onlookers > understand what had just happened, the crowd attacks the cutter killing > him on the spot. (African culture has a rather direct way of dealing with > getting pissed) The kid was hauled to a modern hospital where he survived, > but still came up a bit short in the deal. Better he had stayed a kid. > Just trying to educate the world one person at a time, Harlow. > hanson wrote: Benj, any culture, society, cult or clan which mutilates its own children should be, as YOU say, "killing the mutilators on the spot". BTW, Glazier, the Swine, bragged that he finally has a foreskin again, which undoubtedly will cause him to claim, also again, that he is a Viking, and not the "Vile Kike barely kicking" in a Barrel boat that will never sail nor sink but always stink. Pity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <g7vaoad50094ng20qjme0m1dpm4sdu6sdm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #501332 |
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 02:29:25 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> wrote: >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >news:spd6oap808ul9nhhdlhog9l4ophpfi38o8@4ax.com... >> >> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:30:20 +0200, "Malte Runz" <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> >> wrote: >> >> >"duke" skrev i meddelelsen >> >news:1gl3oa1r31c2f9mlo12i42pnurhv4fc10f@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:28:21 +0200, "Malte Runz" >> >> <malte_runz@forgitit.dk> >> >> wrote: >> >> >(snip) > >> >> I know that agnostics are actually what you atheist wannabe's are >> >> trying >> >> to >> >> claim - that you simply just not a believer. ... >> > >> >Bingo! I simply don't believe. It doesn't matter one bit what you want to >> >call me. Atheist or agnostic. You can call me Al, for all I care. As long >> >as >> >you don't say that I claim to /know/ there is no god. >> >> It doesn't matter to me either. ... >Yet, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tell atheists that should call >ourselves agnostic. The definition exists without my help. >> ... But this very ng enjoys revealing it's atheism >> that is actually agnosticism. An atheist rejects the existence of God; an >> agnostic find the evidence unconvincing. You see what I see. I believe, >> you >> doubt. >> >> >> ... In facts, you are trying to deny the existence of God. >> >> >I'm trying no such thing. The moment I turn off my newsreader 'gods and >> >whispers and theo-logic' is no longer part of my life. You're my 'reality >> >video game'. I know you're serious, and you live a life of faith and, >> >what >> >to me, is a childish belief in magic. And I poke fun at it. It's free, >> >you >> >keep coming back for more, so why not. >> >> Just as I poke a little fun at you but more seriously try to help you. You >> don't have to believe me. I believe. ... >You have shown a level of disresrespect other people that makes it >impossible for me to believe you. What is a "disres-respect"? >>Just as I poke a little fun at you but more seriously try to help you. You >>don't have to believe me. I believe Your belief that atheism has no >> disastrous implications on your eternal demise is countered by mine that >> says that is not true. ... >Here we have it! 'Atheism has disastrous implications.' The mere act of not >believing is a ticket to Hell. I told you. That is agnostic. You atheist wannabe's live life outside the directives given by God, and that is a sure free ticket to the fires of hell. >No matter what kind of life one might have >lived. Even a lifetime of good deeds. Nothing counts. It's the non-belief >itself. Nope, pretend rejection. >But back on 09.06.2015 you wrote, when we were on that topic (atheists doing >good things): >> ...We're judged by the same presence of our actions > >And I replied: "Interesting. I'm sure this bit will come in very handy one >of these days." > >Told you! That's exactly true. Finding the evidence suspect does not condemn you. Living outside the call of God in the way you live your life is the final determination. And only God gets a vote. >> >Are you listening to yourself? "the evidence based on his impact on our >> >surroundings". "None of us know" what the impact is. Which one is it? >> Creation, existence. The most basic question of "why"? Is there a "why". >Blah, blah, blah. Which one is it? God is creator. >(snip) > >> >> >Without evidence not believing is the only rational thing to do. >> >> >> >> Yet we have the evidence you first try to hide from. >> >> >Oh, yes... Creation. 'Creation is PROOF of God' you said once. >> >> Actually I said it's "evidence of". ... > >No you didn't. > >> ... But I believe that I once made the >> statement that the evidence is so strong that it could almost be called >> "proof". > >A while back I promised you, that I'd be there every time you'd try to deny >that drivel you spew. Here is what you wrote on 05.31.2015: > >> Creation is guaranteed PROOF of a creator. > >Not "evidence of" almost "proof". No. "guaranteed PROOF". That's a >smackdown, duke. Feel free to tap out. > >This is what I do to you. Get used to it. > > >> >You saying it >> >is in itself not evidence, do you agree? So what is your evidence? 'Only >> >God can create something from nothing!' How do you know? 'Nothing can >> >come >> >from nothing. Heeheehee'. >> >> Exactly. Just don't ask me how God did it. > >If you don't know how, why do you believe God did it? > >(snip) > >> >> No, an atheist, or atheist wannabe, chooses to deny/reject the >> >> existence >> >> of God. >> >> >No, we don't. [stomping my feet] We don't we don't we don't. Seriously, >> >here >> >is where we are: We don't give a flying fuck about God. Get it? >> >> I see it. Hence the evidence is. You just refuse to see it. > >Why would I refuse to see anything? There are plenty of 'holy scriptures' >claiming the existence of thousands of gods and creation myths. They are not >evidence. And the sacred whispers sure aren't either. If there were evidence >of a 'creator of the Universe' I'd have no problem accepting it. But there >isn't. Only ancient books and people being convinced that the truth lies >within their pages. > > >> >We had the discussion about 'choosing to believe' earlier. We both >> >accepted >> >that you didn't choose to believe and I didn't choose to not believe. So >> >why >> >are you backing down again, saying that atheists 'choose'? >> >> You choose to deny that evidence really is evidence. > >Don't flatter yourself. Holy books and whispers are not enough for me. How >much time would you spend on 'denying' that Hagar the Horrible is a >historical figure? Wouldn't you rather just kick back and watch at the >dickhead believing it neutering himself. That's what I do... duke. > > >(snip) the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web