Religions > Atheism > Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Marguerita" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 07:31:23 AM |
| Object: |
Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:54:00 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:50:51 +0000, Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk>
wrote:
Do you believe in UFOs?
I don't have any idea if there are UFO's.
There are many, many eye witnesses. Millions of them, in fact. They
have documented their experiences.
ok.
If eye witnesses are all the proof
you need that Jesus rose from the dead, why do you not believe in
UFOs? What's the difference?
The story of Jesus has never faltered. In fact, it has grown steadily for 2000
years now.
Nobody has seen a UFO in, what, 30 years now. It's dying. Not so for the truth
of Christ. It just grows and grows and grows. Truth has a way of doing that,
you know.
Belief in God is dying out in some parts of the world - like the UK.
As for there being no UFO sightings for 30 years, that's just another
lie. There are thousands each year, and millions of people in the US
claim to have seen them. If you do not believe in UFOs, then the fact
that there were eye-witnesses to the resurrection is completely
irrelevant. Either eye-witnesses constitute proof or they do not.
M
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
02 Apr 2004 03:55:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:31:23 +0000, Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk>
wrote:
Belief in God is dying out in some parts of the world - like the UK.
And this is something to be proud of.....................why?
It's sorta like playing russian roulette, except in russian roulette, you have a
chance to succeed.
As for there being no UFO sightings for 30 years, that's just another
lie. There are thousands each year, and millions of people in the US
claim to have seen them.
And not a one has any evidence.
If you do not believe in UFOs, then the fact
that there were eye-witnesses to the resurrection is completely
irrelevant. Either eye-witnesses constitute proof or they do not.
I believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 06:23:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:05:35 +0000, Marguerita <marguerita@hottermail.co.uk>
wrote:
Belief in God is dying out in some parts of the world - like the UK.
And this is something to be proud of.....................why?
Because it's an indication that intelligence is beating superstition.
And what "intelligence" do you have that mandates the non-existance of God?
It's sorta like playing russian roulette, except in russian roulette, you have a
chance to succeed.
It's like playing Russian roulette when there are no bullets in the
gun. Why bother?
No bullet - no russian roulette. No God - shame on you.
As for there being no UFO sightings for 30 years, that's just another
lie. There are thousands each year, and millions of people in the US
claim to have seen them.
And not a one has any evidence.
Precisely! You tell me that eye witness evidence is crucial as proof
of the resurrection of Jesus and then deny that eye witness evidence
is important in UFO sightings. Then you refute them on the basis that
there is no evidence, as there is no evidence of God.
I believe, and I have (hopefully) an eternity of love and peace of mind ahead of
me. I also accept that UFO's might truly exist.
Let's see you do the same.
And apparently your belief renders you unable to comprehend a rational
argument. Therein lies the tragedy of Catholicism.
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no almighty God?
I really, really look forward to *this discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 06:34:14 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no almighty
God?
Every rational argument argues that.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 09:14:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:34:14 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no almighty
God?
Every rational argument argues that.
I say there is no such thing as a rational argument that there is no almighty
God.
Now, if you have one, why not present it here for further discussion.
If you can. :-))))))
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 10:36:54 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:93lt60ldarnntveun9ri9jq2qf9mdo1bc6@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:34:14 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God?
Every rational argument argues that.
I say there is no such thing as a rational argument that there is
no almighty God.
Now, if you have one, why not present it here for further
discussion.
If you can. :-))))))
Define "God."
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 12:14:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:36:54 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:93lt60ldarnntveun9ri9jq2qf9mdo1bc6@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:34:14 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God?
Every rational argument argues that.
I say there is no such thing as a rational argument that there is
no almighty God.
Now, if you have one, why not present it here for further
discussion.
If you can. :-))))))
Define "God."
God lives in Italy, sits on a throne, wears a white dress and a fish
hat, has friends who all wear red dresses and follow him around.
I saw him on TV at Christmas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 12:14:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:36:54 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:93lt60ldarnntveun9ri9jq2qf9mdo1bc6@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:34:14 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God?
Every rational argument argues that.
I say there is no such thing as a rational argument that there is
no almighty God.
Now, if you have one, why not present it here for further
discussion.
If you can. :-))))))
Define "God."
I had your ignorance re a rational argument pegged from the beginning.
You have no intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
03 Apr 2004 12:32:56 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:ulvt609gi7pc3li30jrpfpfi0okg26le41@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 16:36:54 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:93lt60ldarnntveun9ri9jq2qf9mdo1bc6@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:34:14 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid>
wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:urat60h0vnno1747s5kadq2qiu7e6m6j4o@4ax.com:
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God?
Every rational argument argues that.
I say there is no such thing as a rational argument that there
is no almighty God.
Now, if you have one, why not present it here for further
discussion.
If you can. :-))))))
Define "God."
I had your ignorance re a rational argument pegged from the
beginning.
You have no intelligence.
If you expect me to provide a rational argument for the nonexistence
of something, you'd better cough up a definition so that I can make an
argument. Otherwise, you'll simply say that my definition is
"incorrect." So put up or shut up, smart boy.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 08:58:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:32:56 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
***
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God?
Every rational argument argues that.
***
I had your ignorance re a rational argument pegged from the
beginning.
You have no intelligence.
If you expect me to provide a rational argument for the nonexistence
of something, you'd better cough up a definition so that I can make an
argument.
Woah, tiger, I marked your words above where you said that **every rational
argument argues that there is no almighty God**.
Now you turning tail and running by saying you have no such rational arguments.
So you lied in the first place.
Otherwise, you'll simply say that my definition is
"incorrect." So put up or shut up, smart boy.
I'm waiting, tiger.
Or are you really admitting you have no rational arguments at all. Which is
pretty evident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 09:33:19 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:ns407011njps2c4llud3i0eph8ihv20ft0@4ax.com:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:32:56 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
***
What rational argument constitutes truth that there is no
almighty God? Every rational argument argues that.
***
I had your ignorance re a rational argument pegged from the
beginning. You have no intelligence.
If you expect me to provide a rational argument for the
nonexistence of something, you'd better cough up a definition so
that I can make an argument.
Woah, tiger, I marked your words above where you said that **every
rational argument argues that there is no almighty God**.
Now you turning tail and running by saying you have no such
rational arguments. So you lied in the first place.
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said, if I
provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply cry, "that's
not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim you wish to see,
define what you mean by "God."
Otherwise, you'll simply say that my definition is "incorrect."
So put up or shut up, smart boy.
I'm waiting, tiger.
Or are you really admitting you have no rational arguments at all.
Which is pretty evident.
So you expect me to provide a rational argument for the nonexistence
of a thing that you refuse to define? How about I provide a rational
argument for the nonexistence of glarbfabs?
Either *define* what you wish me to disprove, or shut up about it.
Those are the only *rational* options. Or you can do as you usually
do and scream "stupid!" and run away like a 5-year-old.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 01:48:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:33:19 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
If you expect me to provide a rational argument for the
nonexistence of something, you'd better cough up a definition so
that I can make an argument.
Woah, tiger, I marked your words above where you said that **every
rational argument argues that there is no almighty God**.
Now you turning tail and running by saying you have no such
rational arguments. So you lied in the first place.
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said, if I
provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply cry, "that's
not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim you wish to see,
define what you mean by "God."
You're a fake, tiger.
Otherwise, you'll simply say that my definition is "incorrect."
So put up or shut up, smart boy.
I'm waiting, tiger.
Or are you really admitting you have no rational arguments at all.
Which is pretty evident.
So you expect me to provide a rational argument for the nonexistence
of a thing that you refuse to define? How about I provide a rational
argument for the nonexistence of glarbfabs?
You're the one that said all rational arguments denies God. Shirely you have
one example. Or so I thought. Nope, you're just a small time fake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 02:13:05 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:h0m0701lbs0t7r4fnr62i1dd8r32iecfin@4ax.com:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 14:33:19 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
If you expect me to provide a rational argument for the
nonexistence of something, you'd better cough up a definition so
that I can make an argument.
Woah, tiger, I marked your words above where you said that
**every rational argument argues that there is no almighty
God**. Now you turning tail and running by saying you have no
such rational arguments. So you lied in the first place.
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said, if
I provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply cry,
"that's not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim you
wish to see, define what you mean by "God."
You're a fake, tiger.
No definition? Just ad hominem.
Otherwise, you'll simply say that my definition is
"incorrect."
So put up or shut up, smart boy.
I'm waiting, tiger.
Or are you really admitting you have no rational arguments at
all.
Which is pretty evident.
So you expect me to provide a rational argument for the
nonexistence of a thing that you refuse to define? How about I
provide a rational argument for the nonexistence of glarbfabs?
You're the one that said all rational arguments denies God.
They do. I'll explain it for the rationally impaired. Any definition
of God will fall outside of the realm of logic. In fact, no sane
person will even attempt to define God, which is why I thought you
might. Since any definition of God falls outside the realm of logic,
then all rational arguments, which only work *within* the realm of
logic, will by definition exclude anything outside of that realm.
Hence, for the sake of rational arguments, nothing outside the realm
of logic exists. If you disagree, feel free to provide a rational
argument for the existence of something outside the realm of logic.
Shirely you have one example. Or so I thought. Nope, you're just
a small time fake.
And clearly you don't have the intellect to understand. Just run away
and play now, boy.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 05:20:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:13:05 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said, if
I provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply cry,
"that's not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim you
wish to see, define what you mean by "God."
You're a fake, tiger.
No definition? Just ad hominem.
Truth. You stated all rational discussion eliminates the existance of God. I
asked you for just one. You can't deliver, because you were lying.
You're the one that said all rational arguments denies God.
They do. I'll explain it for the rationally impaired. Any definition
of God will fall outside of the realm of logic.
Why. I have given numerous pieces of evidence for the existance of God. No
atheist has been able to offer even one piece for the non existance of God.
In fact, no sane
person will even attempt to define God, which is why I thought you
might.
I don't define God. I offer evidence for his existance. Yuo offer nothing.
Since any definition of God falls outside the realm of logic,
then all rational arguments, which only work *within* the realm of
logic, will by definition exclude anything outside of that realm.
You're bullshitting now. You lied before.
Hence, for the sake of rational arguments, nothing outside the realm
of logic exists. If you disagree, feel free to provide a rational
argument for the existence of something outside the realm of logic.
You're walking around with your thumb stuck up your butt. Put up or shut up.
Shirely you have one example. Or so I thought. Nope, you're just
a small time fake.
And clearly you don't have the intellect to understand. Just run away
and play now, boy.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
04 Apr 2004 07:53:22 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:ca2170potbd119s28q4vn939il6p1aduii@4ax.com:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:13:05 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said,
if I provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply
cry, "that's not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim
you wish to see, define what you mean by "God." You're a fake,
tiger.
No definition? Just ad hominem.
Truth. You stated all rational discussion eliminates the
existance of God. I asked you for just one. You can't deliver,
because you were lying.
Apparently, you don't read well either.
You're the one that said all rational arguments denies God.
They do. I'll explain it for the rationally impaired. Any
definition of God will fall outside of the realm of logic.
Why. I have given numerous pieces of evidence for the existance
of God. No atheist has been able to offer even one piece for the
non existance of God.
Non sequitur.
In fact, no sane
person will even attempt to define God, which is why I thought you
might.
I don't define God. I offer evidence for his existance. Yuo
offer nothing.
You mean nothing that your pea-brain can grasp.
Since any definition of God falls outside the realm of logic,
then all rational arguments, which only work *within* the realm
of logic, will by definition exclude anything outside of that
realm.
You're bullshitting now. You lied before.
No, you are simply too ignorant to grasp it.
Hence, for the sake of rational arguments, nothing outside the
realm of logic exists. If you disagree, feel free to provide a
rational argument for the existence of something outside the realm
of logic.
You're walking around with your thumb stuck up your butt. Put up
or shut up.
Get an education.
Shirely you have one example. Or so I thought. Nope, you're
just a small time fake.
And clearly you don't have the intellect to understand. Just run
away and play now, boy.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
Lame.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 04:12:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:53:22 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:ca2170potbd119s28q4vn939il6p1aduii@4ax.com:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:13:05 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
And you accuse me of not having intelligence? LOL. As I said,
if I provide an argument that proves my point, you'll simply
cry, "that's not *God*." So, if you wish to see what you claim
you wish to see, define what you mean by "God." You're a fake,
tiger.
No definition? Just ad hominem.
Truth. You stated all rational discussion eliminates the
existance of God. I asked you for just one. You can't deliver,
because you were lying.
Apparently, you don't read well either.
It is funny that Duke's reading comprehension problem (or honesty
problem) is amazingly similar to Scout Woman's problem. They read
your post, but they SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE, something that
you DID NOT SAY! Next, they respond to something you DID NOT SAY,
then call you a liar when you argue THAT is now what you said.
They EMBRACE THE ERROR, instead of reading what was written, and
responding to what was actually written. They misquote you and call
you a liar.
Seems to me a "Catholic" thing here. This is how it goes.
1) You make a statement.
2) Duke or Scout Woman quotes you incorrectly
3) Then they call you a liar, NOT based on what you said but BASED on
what they thought you said.
And...you can't change their mind, although it is in black and white.
I can only guess that they are either"
1) not honest,
2) can't read or
3) are trolling.
Since any definition of God falls outside the realm of logic,
then all rational arguments, which only work *within* the realm
of logic, will by definition exclude anything outside of that
realm.
You're bullshitting now. You lied before.
No, you are simply too ignorant to grasp it.
Hence, for the sake of rational arguments, nothing outside the
realm of logic exists. If you disagree, feel free to provide a
rational argument for the existence of something outside the realm
of logic.
You're walking around with your thumb stuck up your butt. Put up
or shut up.
Get an education.
Notice how quickly the "good Catholic" Duke lost control and began his
stream of cursing, as he has in the past.
HERE WE GO:
"you were lying."
" I don't define God...Yuo (sic) offer nothing. "
"You're bullshitting now."
"You lied before."
" You're walking around with your thumb stuck up your butt."
"Put up or shut up."
"you're just a small time fake."
"You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger."
Amazing how LITTLE it took for THE REAL DUKE to appear.
D*
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 05:57:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:12:41 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It is funny that Duke's reading comprehension problem (or honesty
problem) is amazingly similar to Scout Woman's problem. They read
your post, but they SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE, something that
you DID NOT SAY! Next, they respond to something you DID NOT SAY,
then call you a liar when you argue THAT is now what you said.
t is a fake.
They EMBRACE THE ERROR, instead of reading what was written, and
responding to what was actually written. They misquote you and call
you a liar.
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God. He lied. He has not
even been able to "repeat" a statement by anybody else to that effect.
Seems to me a "Catholic" thing here. This is how it goes.
1) You make a statement.
2) Duke or Scout Woman quotes you incorrectly
Accurately.
3) Then they call you a liar, NOT based on what you said but BASED on
what they thought you said.
On what you said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 07:41:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 05:57:13 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:12:41 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It is funny that Duke's reading comprehension problem (or honesty
problem) is amazingly similar to Scout Woman's problem. They read
your post, but they SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE, something that
you DID NOT SAY! Next, they respond to something you DID NOT SAY,
then call you a liar when you argue THAT is now what you said.
t is a fake.
They EMBRACE THE ERROR, instead of reading what was written, and
responding to what was actually written. They misquote you and call
you a liar.
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God.
You don't know what "rational" is, do ya?
He lied.
YOU CLAIMED that Tiger said, " **every rational
argument argues that there is no almighty God**."
WRONG!!! Tiger never said that. THAT IS YOUR LIE#1
YOU CLAIMED: "Nobody has seen a UFO in, what, 30 years now."
That is ALSO A LIE...just you speaking from ignorance.
YOU CLAIMED: "I am a whole lot more creditable than you are."
-----> Credible = Believable
TIGER ASKED: "Define God."
YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE GOD.
THEN, you ask Tiger to defend a position with NO standard to defend.
YOU CLAIMED:
1) Tiger "turning tail and running "
2) Tiger "you have no such rational arguments.
YET, YOU STILL REFUSE to DEFINE GOD.
THAT is NOT credibility.
YOU CLAIM: "there is overflowing evidence that [God] does [exist.]
YOU CLAIM: "I'm the only one to provide evidence for almighty God."
YOU CLAIM: "There are no errors in the Word of God."
YOU CLAIM: "The truth is yours to reach out and grab."
YOU CLAIM: "I have all evidence."
I have asked you to prove both in at least five posts.
I would say, since you refuse to DEFINE GOD, since you refuse to prove
"there are no errors in the Word of God, that it is YOU who is being
duplicitous, dishonest, even fraudulent.
He has not
even been able to "repeat" a statement by anybody else to that effect.
Seems to me a "Catholic" thing here. This is how it goes.
1) You make a statement.
2) Duke or Scout Woman quotes you incorrectly
Accurately.
You CAN'T EVEN QUOTE TIGER ACCURATELY!!!
3) Then they call you a liar, NOT based on what you said but BASED on
what they thought you said.
On what you said.
WRONG! Ya can't even Quote Tiger. Are you and Scout Female the same
person? You fraudulently represent yourselves as credible, yet you
can't even quote someone correctly.
D*
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 05:40:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:41:48 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God.
You don't know what "rational" is, do ya?
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
He's a fake.
YOU CLAIMED that Tiger said, " **every rational
argument argues that there is no almighty God**."
WRONG!!! Tiger never said that. THAT IS YOUR LIE#1
Close enough. I don't remember his exact words.
YOU CLAIMED: "Nobody has seen a UFO in, what, 30 years now."
A reasonable assumption.
That is ALSO A LIE...just you speaking from ignorance.
Ok, so who saw a ufo in the last 30 years?
YOU CLAIMED: "I am a whole lot more creditable than you are."
-----> Credible = Believable
TIGER ASKED: "Define God."
YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE GOD.
THEN, you ask Tiger to defend a position with NO standard to defend.
He said it, not me.
YOU CLAIMED:
1) Tiger "turning tail and running "
2) Tiger "you have no such rational arguments.
That's right - t is a fake.
YET, YOU STILL REFUSE to DEFINE GOD.
THAT is NOT credibility.
He brought it up. What's his problem?
YOU CLAIM: "there is overflowing evidence that [God] does [exist.]
That's true.
YOU CLAIM: "I'm the only one to provide evidence for almighty God."
On this thread, that's true.
YOU CLAIM: "There are no errors in the Word of God."
That's true beyond an absolute doubt.
YOU CLAIM: "The truth is yours to reach out and grab."
That's true.
YOU CLAIM: "I have all evidence."
That's true.
I would say, since you refuse to DEFINE GOD, since you refuse to prove
"there are no errors in the Word of God, that it is YOU who is being
duplicitous, dishonest, even fraudulent.
If it floats your boat, go for it.
He has not
even been able to "repeat" a statement by anybody else to that effect.
Seems to me a "Catholic" thing here. This is how it goes.
1) You make a statement.
No, he made a statement.
2) Duke or Scout Woman quotes you incorrectly
But accurate enough.
Accurately.
You CAN'T EVEN QUOTE TIGER ACCURATELY!!!
Accurately enough. He's a fake.
3) Then they call you a liar, NOT based on what you said but BASED on
what they thought you said.
On what you said.
WRONG! Ya can't even Quote Tiger. Are you and Scout Female the same
person?
Nope.
You fraudulently represent yourselves as credible, yet you
can't even quote someone correctly.
D*
Wow, now that're really one to worry about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
06 Apr 2004 02:22:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:40:14 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:41:48 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God.
You don't know what "rational" is, do ya?
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
It DOES MATTER when you attempt to argue something about which you
don't even know!!!
You asked him to "quote one" what???
He's a fake.
Sorry, I think you are looking in the mirror.
YOU CLAIMED that Tiger said, " **every rational
argument argues that there is no almighty God**."
WRONG!!! Tiger never said that. THAT IS YOUR LIE#1
Close enough. I don't remember his exact words.
Then YOU LIED AGAIN!!!
You FALSIFY a statement, attribute it to Tiger, then call tiger a
fake, based upon YOUR falsified statement! HA HA HA...is THAT the way
they taught you do defend your faith at Catholic school?
YOU CLAIMED: "Nobody has seen a UFO in, what, 30 years now."
A reasonable assumption.
Only if you have been living in a vacuum!!
That is ALSO A LIE...just you speaking from ignorance.
Ok, so who saw a ufo in the last 30 years?
Jimmy Carter, Ex-President of the USA,
In October of '69 Jimmy Carter witnessed a UFO.
From "Above Top Secret" (book): During his election campaign of 1976
he told the following to reporters: It was the darndest thing I've
ever seen. It was big, it was very bright, it changed colors and it
was about the size of the moon.. We watched it for ten minutes, but
none of us could figure out what it was. One thing's for sure, I'll
never make fun of people who say they've seen unidentified objects in
the sky. If I become President, I'll make every piece of information
this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and the
scientists.
======
FROM 1967:
My sighting was of a silent craft with rotating lights, at helicopter
height, and lasted for 3-5 minutes. I had a second sighting one month
later which I eventually forced myself to discount because I was in a
car by myself, on my way to an evening job, and had no other witness.
http://www.cohenufo.org/Carter_Clark.html#mysighting
======
In Nov/Dec of 1967, I had two UFO sightings which left me permanently
searching for answers regarding the question of UFOs. Although the Air
Force and scientific establishment were saying they didn't exist, my
own eyes had told me they did. Although the research I performed
thereafter was basically a search for an answer for myself, I swore to
myself back then that one day I'd be able to talk about it and,
hopefully, be listened to in a serious manner.
http://www.cohenufo.org/index.html
======
SIGHTING BY THE BELGIAN AIR FORCE
Part of the NATO Chain (1989/90)
the Belgium high command stated they felt that what they chased,
upwards of 75 minutes, was intelligently controlled. Go ahead and look
closely at the Belgium report again. Check out the gun camera
numerical data from that case.
http://www.cohenufo.org/authorsc.html#Belgium
======
NATIONAL UFO REPORTING CENTER
World Wide Web Site
The web's most comprehensive and up to date UFO information source
Provided by America's foremost UFO Reporting Agency
In continuous operation since 1974
http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/
======
There are plenty of others.
YOU CLAIMED: "I am a whole lot more creditable than you are."
-----> Credible = Believable
TIGER ASKED: "Define God."
YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE GOD.
THEN, you ask Tiger to defend a position with NO standard to defend.
He said it, not me.
You asked him for proof...
FIRST YOU MUST DEFINE that for which you are asking.
You did not DEFINE God, as you wanted him to defend or support his
position. FIRST YOU MUST DEFINE GOD.
YOU CLAIMED:
1) Tiger "turning tail and running "
2) Tiger "you have no such rational arguments.
That's right - t is a fake.
You can't say that because you DO NOT KNOW THAT. You have not defined
God so that the argument can be supported.
YET, YOU STILL REFUSE to DEFINE GOD.
THAT is NOT credibility.
He brought it up. What's his problem?
You REFUSE to define God.
What is YOUR problem? Can't you do it?
YOU CLAIM: "there is overflowing evidence that [God] does [exist.]
That's true.
Today you said, "Can we prove it - of course not."
Were you lying then or are you lying now?
YOU CLAIM: "I'm the only one to provide evidence for almighty God."
On this thread, that's true
You did not say, "on this thread." You lie again.
YOU CLAIM: "There are no errors in the Word of God."
That's true beyond an absolute doubt.
I ask you AGAIN...Prove it!
YOU CLAIM: "The truth is yours to reach out and grab."
That's true.
Define "grab it?"
Where does one "grab it?"
How does one "grab it?"
Where does one go to "grab it?"
What kind of gloves are used to "grab it?"
YOU CLAIM: "I have all evidence."
That's true.
Where is it? Provide it.
I would say, since you refuse to DEFINE GOD, since you refuse to prove
"there are no errors in the Word of God, that it is YOU who is being
duplicitous, dishonest, even fraudulent.
If it floats your boat, go for it.
So you admit you are a fraud because you cannot define God?
He has not
even been able to "repeat" a statement by anybody else to that effect.
Seems to me a "Catholic" thing here. This is how it goes.
1) You make a statement.
No, he made a statement.
And you challenged him fraudulently, because you did not define that
for which you challenged him. Define God.
2) Duke or Scout Woman quotes you incorrectly
But accurate enough.
NOT accurate at all!!!
Accurately.
You CAN'T EVEN QUOTE TIGER ACCURATELY!!!
Accurately enough. He's a fake.
1) YOU LIED about what Tiger said.
2) YOU are the fake, not Tiger.
3) You are being dishonest!!!
3) Then they call you a liar, NOT based on what you said but BASED on
what they thought you said.
On what you said.
WRONG! Ya can't even Quote Tiger. Are you and Scout Female the same
person?
Nope.
You both defraud others in exactly the same way.
You fraudulently represent yourselves as credible, yet you
can't even quote someone correctly.
D*
Wow, now that're really one to worry about.
It is when you continually call many other people "LIAR" after you
misquote them, then attack them based upon your proclivity for
FRAUD/LYING.
Qualem blennum!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
07 Apr 2004 05:08:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:22:06 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
It DOES MATTER when you attempt to argue something about which you
don't even know!!!
Fine - so far he can't even quote one reliable statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
07 Apr 2004 11:15:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:08:46 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:22:06 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
It DOES MATTER when you attempt to argue something about which you
don't even know!!!
Fine - so far he can't even quote one reliable statement.
So far, you haven't been able to define God.
"Devout religionists are frequently attracted to and
bound to their piety largely because it presumably offers them
holier-than-thouness and oneupmanship over non-religionists."
--Dr. Albert Ellis
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
07 Apr 2004 05:07:53 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:15:26 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:08:46 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:22:06 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
It DOES MATTER when you attempt to argue something about which you
don't even know!!!
Fine - so far he can't even quote one reliable statement.
So far, you haven't been able to define God.
Sure I did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
08 Apr 2004 11:11:13 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:15:26 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:08:46 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:22:06 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
It doesn't matter. t said it, not me. I asked him to quote one. He can't.
It DOES MATTER when you attempt to argue something about which you
don't even know!!!
Fine - so far he can't even quote one reliable statement.
So far, you haven't been able to define God.
Not really.
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 07:09:51 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:2ne2709tqjnnmejormrop0fsuvu5htm42a@4ax.com:
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God. He
lied. He has not even been able to "repeat" a statement by
anybody else to that effect.
Subtle lies...the mark of a *true* fake. LOL.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 05:33:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:09:51 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:2ne2709tqjnnmejormrop0fsuvu5htm42a@4ax.com:
He said all rational statements deny the existance of God. He
lied. He has not even been able to "repeat" a statement by
anybody else to that effect.
Subtle lies...the mark of a *true* fake. LOL.
You lied, you fake.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 05:54:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:53:22 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
Truth. You stated all rational discussion eliminates the
existance of God. I asked you for just one. You can't deliver,
because you were lying.
Apparently, you don't read well either.
Can't you even present one such "rational" argument. Your embarrassment must be
reaching a fever pitch by now.
Why. I have given numerous pieces of evidence for the existance
of God. No atheist has been able to offer even one piece for the
non existance of God.
Non sequitur.
Fact.
I don't define God. I offer evidence for his existance. Yuo
offer nothing.
You mean nothing that your pea-brain can grasp.
Nope, your total lack of knowledge is glaring.
You're bullshitting now. You lied before.
No, you are simply too ignorant to grasp it.
You lied, you have nothing.
You're walking around with your thumb stuck up your butt. Put up
or shut up.
Get an education.
You're a fake.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
Lame.
You're washed up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 07:45:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 05:54:14 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:53:22 GMT, Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote:
Truth. You stated all rational discussion eliminates the
existance of God. I asked you for just one. You can't deliver,
because you were lying.
Apparently, you don't read well either.
Can't you even present one such "rational" argument.
Duke, until you DEFINE GOD, even YOU can't make an argument for or
against the existence of God.
You're bullshitting now.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
Lame.
You're washed up.
Until you FIRST define God, you can't argue your position. Looks like
YOU are the fake. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove what you cannot
define.
D*
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
05 Apr 2004 05:42:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:45:17 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
Duke, until you DEFINE GOD, even YOU can't make an argument for or
against the existence of God.
Defining God is easy. The Supreme Creator.
You're bullshitting now.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
Lame.
You're washed up.
Until you FIRST define God, you can't argue your position. Looks like
YOU are the fake. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove what you cannot
define.
I just did. Now, are you going to ask me to define "creator", or "supreme"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don calldonREMOVE IT @something.net" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
06 Apr 2004 02:24:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:42:01 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:45:17 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
Duke, until you DEFINE GOD, even YOU can't make an argument for or
against the existence of God.
Defining God is easy. The Supreme Creator.
Define "supreme creater? "Creater of what? Please BE SPECIFIC. Stop
using cliches.
You're bullshitting now.
You're a fake, tiger. A paper tiger.
Lame.
You're washed up.
Until you FIRST define God, you can't argue your position. Looks like
YOU are the fake. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove what you cannot
define.
I just did. Now, are you going to ask me to define "creator", or "supreme"?
You gave cliches, not a definition. Your poor definition could refer
to any of the THOUSANDS of "gods" that others claim to believe in.
Please be more specific without cliches.
Qualem blennum!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What prevented God from just saying; " I PARDON YOU.?" |
07 Apr 2004 05:10:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:24:51 -0500, Don < calldonREMOVE IT
@something.net> wrote:
Duke, until you DEFINE GOD, even YOU can't make an argument for or
against the existence of God.
Defining God is easy. The Supreme Creator.
Define "supreme creater? "Creater of what? Please BE SPECIFIC. Stop
using cliches.
You're arguing like a child now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
