| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kert Una" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2005 02:30:36 AM |
| Object: |
Response to duke |
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
In order to say this, you have to have some idea of the purpose of
your deity in creating planets devoid of life. Do you know why your
deity created such planets?
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 07:09:20 AM |
|
|
"Kert Una" <kertuna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a73a2c23.0501241830.491f49fc@posting.google.com...
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
In order to say this, you have to have some idea of the purpose of
your deity in creating planets devoid of life. Do you know why your
deity created such planets?
I think the response would be
"dunno, he just did"
Or....
It's all part of plan to test us...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 03:37:58 AM |
|
|
"Kert Una" <kertuna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a73a2c23.0501241830.491f49fc@posting.google.com...
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
Oh my. Are you asking the WRONG person :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 03:45:58 AM |
|
|
In article <a73a2c23.0501241830.491f49fc@posting.google.com>,
kertuna@hotmail.com says...
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning"
Duke is the classic example of being "highly challenged", particularly
by tasks like learning his alphabet and adding one digit numbers. If he
weren't a highly challenged retard with an an IQ of 10 then he wouldn't
be stupid enough to be taken in by god belief.
,
you'd have to explain that term.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
In order to say this, you have to have some idea of the purpose of
your deity in creating planets devoid of life. Do you know why your
deity created such planets?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 11:51:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:45:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <a73a2c23.0501241830.491f49fc@posting.google.com>,
kertuna@hotmail.com says...
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning"
Duke is the classic example of being "highly challenged", particularly
by tasks like learning his alphabet and adding one digit numbers. If he
weren't a highly challenged retard with an an IQ of 10 then he wouldn't
be stupid enough to be taken in by god belief.
And yet I sit here at my computer and make a mockery of you day in and day out.
Which is not saying much for you.
Is it, quib?
At least he has done something that is clearly beyond your level of
understanding and action. He asked what I meant. You have yet to demonstrate
that talent.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
26 Jan 2005 03:32:58 PM |
|
|
In article <unmdv0han4dr0228ech04718mlv4g1ktuu@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:45:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <a73a2c23.0501241830.491f49fc@posting.google.com>,
kertuna@hotmail.com says...
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning"
Duke is the classic example of being "highly challenged", particularly
by tasks like learning his alphabet and adding one digit numbers. If he
weren't a highly challenged retard with an an IQ of 10 then he wouldn't
be stupid enough to be taken in by god belief.
And yet I sit here at my computer and make a mockery
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
of you day in and day out.
Which is not saying much for you.
As with your current post, you have nothing of substance to say. You
only have grandiose claims that you can never back up.
Is it, quib?
At least he has done something that is clearly beyond your level of
understanding and action.
I understand quite well that you are incapable of engaging in reasoned
dialogue. Therefore I merely correct your many errors, educate your
stupid ***** and move on.
He asked what I meant.
You are devoid of meaning or intellect. That much should be obvious to
anyone.
You have yet to demonstrate
that talent.
I've consistently demonstrated that I'm more talented than you in just
about every positive, conceivable way.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
26 Jan 2005 11:37:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning"
Duke is the classic example of being "highly challenged", particularly
by tasks like learning his alphabet and adding one digit numbers. If he
weren't a highly challenged retard with an an IQ of 10 then he wouldn't
be stupid enough to be taken in by god belief.
And yet I sit here at my computer and make a mockery
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
Not me, bubba. I enjoy coming home from work and laughing at you junior
atheists. You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and it
shows.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 03:17:10 AM |
|
|
In article <8bagv0h6evddq12al1ueau5lh7ghbg663p@4ax.com>,
duckgumbo32@cox.net says...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:32:58 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning"
Duke is the classic example of being "highly challenged", particularly
by tasks like learning his alphabet and adding one digit numbers. If he
weren't a highly challenged retard with an an IQ of 10 then he wouldn't
be stupid enough to be taken in by god belief.
And yet I sit here at my computer and make a mockery
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
Not me, bubba.
Yeah you, dickless wonder.
I enjoy coming home from work and laughing at you junior
atheists.
I'm sure that idiots like you laugh at a lot of things
inappropriately without understanding the content.
You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and it
shows.
You have built a reputation for frequent gaffes, blatant stupidity,
transparently fallacious argument, appalling ignorance, etc. Therefore,
it certainly shows that you don't know what the ***** you're talking
about, but nobody with any credibility can make similar accusations
about me. Now stop lying and childishly retreading the many insults
that others have rightly and factually applied to you.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 11:57:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
Not me, bubba.
Yeah you, dickless wonder.
Like I always say, any time a kid atheist like you jabs out at me, I wear it as
a badge of honor.
So, thanks.
I enjoy coming home from work and laughing at you junior
atheists.
I'm sure that idiots like you laugh at a lot of things
inappropriately without understanding the content.
I understand you and your kind, and you are funny and dumb about Christianity..
You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and it
shows.
You have built a reputation for frequent gaffes, blatant stupidity,
transparently fallacious argument, appalling ignorance, etc.
Could be. But the delightful part is that my supposed reputation exists in a
bunch of dumb atheists that have no idea of what Christianity and God stands
for.
Therefore,
it certainly shows that you don't know what the ***** you're talking
about,
But I still outshine the average atheist by leaps and bounds.
but nobody with any credibility can make similar accusations
about me.
Yep, you are just plain dumb - nicely stated by me, of course..
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 01:09:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:57:03 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
Not me, bubba.
Yeah you, dickless wonder.
Like I always say, any time a kid atheist like you jabs out at me, I wear it as
a badge of honor.
What is written on the badge?
So, thanks.
I enjoy coming home from work and laughing at you junior
atheists.
I'm sure that idiots like you laugh at a lot of things
inappropriately without understanding the content.
I understand you and your kind, and you are funny and dumb about Christianity..
You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, and it
shows.
You have built a reputation for frequent gaffes, blatant stupidity,
transparently fallacious argument, appalling ignorance, etc.
Could be. But the delightful part is that my supposed reputation exists in a
bunch of dumb atheists that have no idea of what Christianity and God stands
for.
Yes we do. It stands for nothing but nonesense.
Therefore,
it certainly shows that you don't know what the ***** you're talking
about,
But I still outshine the average atheist by leaps and bounds.
Nope, nobody compares with you. You are a fantastic legend in
your own waiting for death time.
but nobody with any credibility can make similar accusations
about me.
Yep, you are just plain dumb - nicely stated by me, of course.
Of course.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 10:53:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:09:07 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:57:03 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
You make a mockery of yourself, fool. Your lame attacks only reveal
your own manifest stupidity.
Not me, bubba.
Yeah you, dickless wonder.
Like I always say, any time a kid atheist like you jabs out at me, I wear it as
a badge of honor.
What is written on the badge?
GOD LOVES MORONS
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
January 27th
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 11:48:42 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:09:07 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:57:03 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:17:10 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Like I always say, any time a kid atheist like you jabs out at me, I wear it as
a badge of honor.
What is written on the badge?
GOD LOVES MORONS
ah, GLM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
29 Jan 2005 02:38:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:53:55 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
What is written on the badge?
GOD LOVES MORONS
You are absolutely right. For God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 10:52:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:09:07 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
Like I always say, any time a kid atheist like you jabs out at me, I wear it as
a badge of honor.
What is written on the badge?
Badge of Honor.
Could be. But the delightful part is that my supposed reputation exists in a
bunch of dumb atheists that have no idea of what Christianity and God stands
for.
Yes we do. It stands for nothing but nonesense.
Well, you too will find out for sure one moment after you die.
Therefore,
it certainly shows that you don't know what the ***** you're talking
about,
But I still outshine the average atheist by leaps and bounds.
Nope, nobody compares with you.
That's what I said.
You are a fantastic legend in
your own waiting for death time.
Oh, we are all going to go one day, and then "the judgment".
Best of luck.
but nobody with any credibility can make similar accusations
about me.
Yep, you are just plain dumb - nicely stated by me, of course.
Of course.
Of course.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 07:07:18 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
You have built a reputation for frequent gaffes, blatant stupidity,
transparently fallacious argument, appalling ignorance, etc.
Therefore, it certainly shows that you don't know what the *****
you're talking about, but nobody with any credibility can make
similar accusations about me. Now stop lying and childishly
retreading the many insults that others have rightly and factually
applied to you.
And this reputation has been built by your response to people who initially
thought you might indeed be interested in serious debate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 03:39:33 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 18:30:36 -0800, (Kert Una) said in
alt.atheism:
Dear Duke,
[snip]
In order to say this, you have to have some idea of the purpose of
your deity in creating planets devoid of life. Do you know why your
deity created such planets?
Since his religion maintains that "no man can know the mind of God",
if he claims to know the reason he's lying. Either he can't know or
he's not Christian.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
25 Jan 2005 11:48:45 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2005 18:30:36 -0800, (Kert Una) wrote:
Dear Duke,
As you are the only theist who seems to have answered my post, I'll
respond to your response.
In your response you said:
"Highly-challenged human reasoning doesn't even come close
to explaining why God did what he did."
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
And that includes the power of reason.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
Basis all that we know, or better yet all that we don't yet know, then it
virtually nonexistent that you or I have even come close to knowing God's
reasoning and purposes.
In order to say this, you have to have some idea of the purpose of
your deity in creating planets devoid of life. Do you know why your
deity created such planets?
No, I don't need to know why. Some have already died out, some exist now, and
some have yet to develop. That's logical reasoning. To establish the timetable
set by humankind as the datum is unrealistic.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
26 Jan 2005 12:33:31 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:48:45 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On 24 Jan 2005 18:30:36 -0800, (Kert Una) wrote:
Dear Duke,
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
And that includes the power of reason.
Well, you haven't done much on the reason end of things.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
Basis all that we know, or better yet all that we don't yet know, then it
virtually nonexistent that you or I have even come close to knowing God's
reasoning and purposes.
That's a complete cop out, and you continually make claims in God's
name.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
26 Jan 2005 01:52:19 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:33:31 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:48:45 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On 24 Jan 2005 18:30:36 -0800, (Kert Una) wrote:
Dear Duke,
I am not sure what you mean by "highly-challenged human reasoning",
you'd have to explain that term.
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
No no 2005 - 1903 = 75,
Duke is never wrong (he has told us so) his arithmetic is perfect :-)
And that includes the power of reason.
Well, you haven't done much on the reason end of things.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
Basis all that we know, or better yet all that we don't yet know, then it
virtually nonexistent that you or I have even come close to knowing God's
reasoning and purposes.
That's a complete cop out, and you continually make claims in God's
name.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
26 Jan 2005 11:39:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:33:31 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
And that includes the power of reason.
Well, you haven't done much on the reason end of things.
My question to you: How do you know that any explanation thought up
human reasoning (highly-challenged or otherwise) does not come close?
Basis all that we know, or better yet all that we don't yet know, then it
virtually nonexistent that you or I have even come close to knowing God's
reasoning and purposes.
That's a complete cop out, and you continually make claims in God's
name.
I know better than to even suggest we are capable of understanding God.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 12:59:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:39:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:33:31 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
A truely stupid comment, Earl. You earn petty responses.
That's a complete cop out, and you continually make claims in God's
name.
I know better than to even suggest we are capable of understanding God.
So why do you continually try to tell us what God thinks?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 02:58:18 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:39:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:33:31 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years
ago, has hardly even scratched the surface of all that is yet to
be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
A truely stupid comment, Earl. You earn petty responses.
Note that Earl does not admit error, just that you make a petty response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 11:04:35 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:58:18 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:39:06 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:33:31 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years
ago, has hardly even scratched the surface of all that is yet to
be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
A truely stupid comment, Earl. You earn petty responses.
Note that Earl does not admit error, just that you make a petty response.
Didn't you know? He is a novice Pope in training to replace the
present one. Today he is practising being fallible. He is right
we did learn to fly 75 years ago and did invent (not discover)
electricity 100 years ago. We will just simply have to rewrite the
history books we are all wrong Duke has pronounced it so. And
of course, yes, the earth is still flat, everything orbits around us,
rainbows are still miracles and we either go to heaven
or hell when we die. The Roman Catholic Church has said so, it must
be true. Oh, and I forget, South America belongs to Portugal
and North America to Spain (or was it the other way round - I
forget?) . The Pope has declared it so in the name of The Lord.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
27 Jan 2005 11:59:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:59:29 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years ago, has hardly
even scratched the surface of all that is yet to be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
A truely stupid comment, Earl. You earn petty responses.
Yet I bring up a subject about mankind and God, and you lose it by talking about
how long ago man first flew. Dumb, berry, dumb.
I know better than to even suggest we are capable of understanding God.
So why do you continually try to tell us what God thinks?
I don't. I only repeat what he himself has divulged. But you wouldn't know one
way or the other.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 05:20:49 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:59:29 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
It simply means that mankind, which only learned to fly 75 years
ago, has hardly even scratched the surface of all that is yet to
be discovered.
That would be 102 years ago, moron. 1903.
A truly petty response, berry.
A truely stupid comment, Earl. You earn petty responses.
Yet I bring up a subject about mankind and God, and you lose it by
talking about how long ago man first flew. Dumb, berry, dumb.
You brought up the subject of flying Earl, we commented on your inability to
do simple math.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
A truly concerned person would ignore the jabs and continue with the reason
he has said he was here.
I know better than to even suggest we are capable of understanding
God.
So why do you continually try to tell us what God thinks?
I don't. I only repeat what he himself has divulged. But you
wouldn't know one way or the other.
So only Earl hears the voice of his gods and no one else can know "one way
or the other."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
28 Jan 2005 10:57:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:20:49 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You brought up the subject of flying Earl, we commented on your inability to
do simple math.
I stated that mankind can't even begin to understand God, and you clowns jump on
the time since mankind first flew.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
A truly concerned person would ignore the jabs and continue with the reason
he has said he was here.
Not to worry about me, your jabs hit back at your own face.
I don't. I only repeat what he himself has divulged. But you
wouldn't know one way or the other.
So only Earl hears the voice of his gods and no one else can know "one way
or the other."
Sure you can, but you refuse.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
29 Jan 2005 07:47:03 PM |
|
|
In article <giglv0ls18tlvubpc0rgp4ul9vq6khjm5h@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:20:49 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You brought up the subject of flying Earl, we commented on your inability to
do simple math.
I stated that mankind can't even begin to understand God, and you clowns jump on
the time since mankind first flew.
LOL, is this like you understood, oh, say the killer jet engine, the TF-
30 that you supposedly helped design or manufacture?
An engineer that can't add/subtract?? LOL.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
We know enough Dookey, we knoww it's a scam to control the weak minded,
and they don't come much weaker than you Dookey.
A truly concerned person would ignore the jabs and continue with the reason
he has said he was here.
Not to worry about me, your jabs hit back at your own face.
Your face is so battered at this point, it's amazing you can recognize
yourself.
I don't. I only repeat what he himself has divulged. But you
wouldn't know one way or the other.
So only Earl hears the voice of his gods and no one else can know "one way
or the other."
Sure you can, but you refuse.
And you refuse to recognize my dog as the true god. Hey it's as solid a
premise as yours is, and he really exists!
BDK
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
29 Jan 2005 11:38:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:57:47 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:20:49 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You brought up the subject of flying Earl, we commented on your inability to
do simple math.
I stated that mankind can't even begin to understand God, and you clowns jump on
the time since mankind first flew.
A much more interesting subject. Anyway we do not discuss nonexistent
gods on this newsgroup.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
So you still think you are right in saying man first learned to fly 70
years ago and that electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago?
A truly concerned person would ignore the jabs and continue with the reason
he has said he was here.
Not to worry about me, your jabs hit back at your own face.
I don't. I only repeat what he himself has divulged. But you
wouldn't know one way or the other.
So only Earl hears the voice of his gods and no one else can know "one way
or the other."
Sure you can, but you refuse.
Refuse what, to believe in something that does not exist?
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
29 Jan 2005 02:41:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:38:42 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
A much more interesting subject. Anyway we do not discuss nonexistent
gods on this newsgroup.
No, only one that you hope and pray to your rock that almighty God doesn't
exist.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
So you still think you are right in saying man first learned to fly 70
years ago and that electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago?
See what I mean.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
29 Jan 2005 03:48:03 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:41:05 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:38:42 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
A much more interesting subject. Anyway we do not discuss nonexistent
gods on this newsgroup.
No, only one that you hope and pray to your rock that almighty God doesn't
exist.
Like to try again, that sentence makes no sense? Why would I want to
do such a barmy thing as talk to a rock? Hmmm.. nope still makes no
sense. Try again.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
So you still think you are right in saying man first learned to fly 70
years ago and that electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago?
typo: for '70' read '75' (sic)
See what I mean.
Nope, what do you mean, and what is your answer to the question,
do you still think man first learned to fly 75 years ago and that
electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago? Forget your mythical gods we
are not interested in discussing that, we are discussing something
else just now.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Response to duke |
30 Jan 2005 02:43:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:48:03 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
A much more interesting subject. Anyway we do not discuss nonexistent
gods on this newsgroup.
No, only one that you hope and pray to your rock that almighty God doesn't
exist.
Like to try again, that sentence makes no sense? Why would I want to
do such a barmy thing as talk to a rock? Hmmm.. nope still makes no
sense. Try again.
A Christian understands.
Your inability to admit error has been noted time and again. This just adds
to the list.
I didn't make an error. You atheists are the ones that flew (oops, pardon the
pun) off in another direction about flight history - one that's so much easier
for an atheist to discuss than God, which you know nothing about.
So you still think you are right in saying man first learned to fly 70
years ago and that electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago?
typo: for '70' read '75' (sic)
See what I mean.
Nope, what do you mean, and what is your answer to the question,
do you still think man first learned to fly 75 years ago and that
electricity was 'invented' 100 years ago? Forget your mythical gods we
are not interested in discussing that, we are discussing something
else just now.
This is funny, and sad at the same time.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
