| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"duke" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2007 07:31:07 AM |
| Object: |
skyeyes - time to wake up |
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:26 -0700, skyeyes <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:32 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:59:17 -0700, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
And do you actually think that the city features around the events in Jesus'
life are not historical? Jesus was buried in a cave 2000 years ago, and when he
walked out, that cave has been visited and venerated for 2000 years now. It
doesn't need a deed with a name to be historically accurate.
Actually, there are more than one cave that people claim is Jesus'
burial cave. The one you're talking about was made famous by
Constantine's mother, not "for 2000 now." The provenance of the cave
is rather sketchy.
Oh, does this mean that you think the massive growth in Christianity in the
first 300 years forgot where he was buried until momma came along?
I don't think the "massive growth" of christianity had a damn thing to
do with whether Jesus existed or not.
His walking out of the tomb after being dead for the better parts of 3 days is
icing on the cake.
God became man to bring redemption for sin and to restore salvation to souls. He
died on the cross in complete obedience to his Father, which is our guide. He
rose from the dead to show us the future for those that follow him, and then
ascended to the Father as our path also.
BELIEVE.
The Jesus cult was invented by
Saul of Tarsus, as a jewish version of a Greek mystery cult.
Well, it started 2000 years ago. It flourished thereafter without falter until
it encompasses 1 person in 3 in the world today. If it had all been a
fabrication, it would have died out 2000 years ago, and people wouldn't have
gone to the lions in belief.
Believe.
Puke, I've lived and traveled in Greece and parts of Asia Minor, and
let me tell you something: people there will tell you *anything* is
true, or can be obtained, or verified, if they think there's money or
social aggrandizement in it for them.
But it's the Christian Church in this case.
And your point is...? Money and aggrandizement have *always*
motivated church leaders. Not to mention power, the greatest
motivator of all.
Some money is needed. Most money goes to the poor and needy.
Oh, I know how the church works as well, pukey. I used to be a
christian myself, back in the day.
But you never learned. Satan suckered you in.
What's more, I've been both a
christian fundy *and* a catlick, and I know how *both* sides of the
aisle are arranged.
No, you believe you do, but you show you never understood.
Oh, sorry you don't understand. For instance, there were 500+ disciples with
Jesus after his resurrection.
Really? Name them. You don't even have to name all 500. I'll be
satisfied if you can name, oh, 75-80 of them.
It doesn't matter what their names were. We know about the 12 apostles and a
few others by name including Mary and Mary. We know that the stories flowered
outward with amazing speed.
Believe.
Or a more parsimonious explanation: that the Jesus cult was a
successful attempt by a Hellenized jew to invent a jewish mystery
cult,
Nobody would have gone to the lions over a rumor.
This is what we keep trying to tell you, and every time we do,
you put your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALALALALAAAA" as
loud as you can to keep from hearing the facts. None of the gospels
were written by the people whose names are on them,
Right.
Finally, your head pops out of your ***** long enough for you to be in
agreement on a fact.
But their snippets were written and vocalized and Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John assembled it under their trademark. Thank your for some knowledge.
Actually, AD65 to as early as AD40, a mere 8 years after Christ's death on the
cross.
Which manuscript(s) would that be? Please be specific, so that I can
check them out myself.
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died. And
maybe only 8 years.
The gospels are contradictory in
many places, and are quite clearly amalgamations of stories gleaned
from other sources and cobbled together.
Actually they are not contradictory in the least when it comes to God's word.
Now whether Joe and Mary went from A to B to C or from A to C then to B and back
to C is of no consequence.
It is if your book is supposedly inspired by an all-knowing being.
The parts about God and his salvation of souls is without error. But the OT,
for instance, is written by men with revelation from God. They clearly revealed
the revelations in their own vocabulary and way of thinking.
Believe.
Your god is supposed to be omnipotent. Making the text of four books
about his son agree would be a dead-simple thing for such a being to
do, if it existed;
He revealed. Man wrote.
Believe.
There are no contradictions.
<ROFLMAO>
Not in the word of God.
What's more, there were
*other* gospels purposefully excluded from the cannon which are even
*more* wildly different. The whole thing smells like, looks like, and
sounds like a put-up job.
No, after should biblical research for 300 years, the Church biblical scholars
determined them to either be in error or already covered re God's word.
Or, as is more likely, they're all just-so stories,
You have no idea that it's "more likely". You don't know.
Believe.
Sorry, sky, but here's your lesson for today.
Sorry, puke, but your little diversion won't work. I gave you the
chapter-and-verse you asked for. Now you tell me why, if it actually
happened, nobody bothered to make a note of the fact that the dead got
out of their graves and walked around when Jesus supposedly was
resurrected?
And I explained to you exactly what was occurring, and accepted by Christians
throughout the world.
Christians know what God calls us to, and one thing He rejects is black magic.
When Jesus the man died, a whole new covenant came into being to replace the old
covenant. The veil tearing revealed the ARK of the Old Covenant being exposed
as old and out of date whereas only the Jewish priests could view it previously.
Until Jesus died on the cross, there was no salvation of souls. The reference
to the graves opening is a release of the souls of the saints (died in the grace
of God but no salvation until Jesus died) rising to the Father in Heaven (the
HolyCity).
Oh, horsepucky. I don't give a crap what fancy theological spin you
want to put on the whole thing, the point was this: HOW COME NOBODY
ELSE NOTICED THAT THE DEAD CAME OUT OF THEIR GRAVES AND WALKED AROUND?
They didn't, turkey. We know that God becoming man returned resurrection from
the dead and salvation of souls. But not resurrection to a sofa, but the
Father, just as Jesus did. Remember, he's our guide. It all fits together.
Notice that the verse doesn't speak of them rising to heaven. The
verse specifically says, "And came out of the graves after his
resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
They "went into the holy city," that is to say, Jerusalem, and
"appeared unto many." Only a tool would try to make that mean that
the dead went to heaven.
Resurrection of the dead who died in the favor of God is solid Christianity.
Eternal torment is for those that died out of the favor of God.
*You* are the one claiming the bible is history. Therefore, it's
incumbent upon *you* to show why this singular event has absolutely no
independent confirmation.
No, **I** understand. You clearly don't.
Every Christian in the world understands that verse. You are likely the only
person in the world too stupid to realize that verse says.
Oh, I fully understand what you christians *claim* that it says, I'm
just not buying.
That's your problem. You stand against 2.2 billion people who believe in God.
Conversations with my cats are more intellectually challenging than
conversations with you tend to be, I'll say that much for them.
For you, I'm sure. Now ask them what salvation of your soul is offered by your
cats.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 10:26:08 AM |
|
|
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
No wonder jebus could walk on water & feed 5000 people with fish sandwiches
with the sort of resources that even a nouvelle cuisine chef would've found
challenging. Water into wine? Rose from the dead? Visions in the desert?
Talking snakes? Burning bushes that don't really burn? Can't see the face of
god because you'll die?
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
Duke, I think its you who needs to wake up. WAKEY WAKEY!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 06:45:00 PM |
|
|
"kingdoodlesquat" <neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote in
news:b6qdnYSBUNqnNXfbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after
Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could
recall every single word spoken & every single act in minute
detail ? & if a "mere" 32 years after jebus kicked the bucket, it
probably would not have been written by the said author as they
would most likely be dead. So the story is told by word of mouth.
& then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe the
author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts
for political reasons at all?
<...>
Some time ago I went throug one of the Gospels (Matthew, I think) and
made a list of passages that were obviously not wittnesed by the
alleged author. I also noted the passages that had *no witnesses. It
was two long lists. It was a fun excercise.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 01:45:43 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
No wonder jebus could walk on water & feed 5000 people with fish sandwiches
with the sort of resources that even a nouvelle cuisine chef would've found
challenging. Water into wine? Rose from the dead? Visions in the desert?
Talking snakes? Burning bushes that don't really burn? Can't see the face of
god because you'll die?
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
<http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html>
By the way, Earl, the earliest scrap of Gospel ACTUAL SCHOLARS accept
is dated around 135 AD. The 65 AD date is one that's been made up for
the Bible in its current form - which is a few centuries to early.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 02:44:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:45:43 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
No wonder jebus could walk on water & feed 5000 people with fish sandwiches
with the sort of resources that even a nouvelle cuisine chef would've found
challenging. Water into wine? Rose from the dead? Visions in the desert?
Talking snakes? Burning bushes that don't really burn? Can't see the face of
god because you'll die?
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
<http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html>
By the way, Earl, the earliest scrap of Gospel ACTUAL SCHOLARS accept
is dated around 135 AD. The 65 AD date is one that's been made up for
the Bible in its current form - which is a few centuries to early.
Or the Monty Python version with Michael Palin -
They laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Newton, why don't they laugh
at me?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 03:54:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:44:48 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:45:43 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
No wonder jebus could walk on water & feed 5000 people with fish sandwiches
with the sort of resources that even a nouvelle cuisine chef would've found
challenging. Water into wine? Rose from the dead? Visions in the desert?
Talking snakes? Burning bushes that don't really burn? Can't see the face of
god because you'll die?
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
<http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html>
By the way, Earl, the earliest scrap of Gospel ACTUAL SCHOLARS accept
is dated around 135 AD. The 65 AD date is one that's been made up for
the Bible in its current form - which is a few centuries to early.
Or the Monty Python version with Michael Palin -
They laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Newton, why don't they laugh
at me?
You're comparing Earl with Einstein and Newton? The only comparison I
see is their current ability to think, and the fact that people laugh
or laughed at all three of them.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 12:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:54:46 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:44:48 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:45:43 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And
maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
No wonder jebus could walk on water & feed 5000 people with fish sandwiches
with the sort of resources that even a nouvelle cuisine chef would've found
challenging. Water into wine? Rose from the dead? Visions in the desert?
Talking snakes? Burning bushes that don't really burn? Can't see the face of
god because you'll die?
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
<http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html>
By the way, Earl, the earliest scrap of Gospel ACTUAL SCHOLARS accept
is dated around 135 AD. The 65 AD date is one that's been made up for
the Bible in its current form - which is a few centuries to early.
Or the Monty Python version with Michael Palin -
They laughed at Einstein, they laughed at Newton, why don't they laugh
at me?
You're comparing Earl with Einstein and Newton? The only comparison I
see is their current ability to think, and the fact that people laugh
or laughed at all three of them.
I appended that to the wrong post.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 11:24:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ died.
And maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
Maybe he forgot a lot, and what he published is what he remembered. Gosh,
turkeys like you never think of that.
But seriously, bubba, what he/they recorded was also the current beliefs of the
people that was developing out of the events, not simply a word of mouth
transmission from 8-32 years before.
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real &
that it describes real events.
Duke, I think its you who needs to wake up. WAKEY WAKEY!!
And if I'm wrong, I wasted a most wonderful life with God present in it.
However, if YOU'RE wrong...................well, shame on you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 01:55:28 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tqcle35mu1t2o9annhu12q9a3fckm42tit@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ
died.
And maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall
every
single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been
written
by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is
told
by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to
believe
the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
Maybe he forgot a lot, and what he published is what he remembered. Gosh,
turkeys like you never think of that.
But seriously, bubba, what he/they recorded was also the current beliefs
of the
people that was developing out of the events, not simply a word of mouth
transmission from 8-32 years before.
You miss the point entirely duckshit (so no suprises there then). By your
own admission, the gospel wasn't written at the time of the events allegedly
taking place, so who's to say that they are accurate? Well nobody, so
there's no-one who can contradict whatever is written, hence, the author
writes a pile of shite & then next thing you know, some ordinary carpenter
bloke ends up as the son of god.
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because rational
thought is beyond you.
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing
about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real
&
that it describes real events.
Duke, I think its you who needs to wake up. WAKEY WAKEY!!
And if I'm wrong,
when have you ever been right? WAKEY WAKEY WAKEY!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 04:29:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:55:28 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ
died. And maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall
every single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been
written by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is
told by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to
believe the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
Maybe he forgot a lot, and what he published is what he remembered. Gosh,
turkeys like you never think of that.
But seriously, bubba, what he/they recorded was also the current beliefs
of the people that was developing out of the events, not simply a word of mouth
transmission from 8-32 years before.
You miss the point entirely duckshit (so no suprises there then).
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
By your
own admission, the gospel wasn't written at the time of the events allegedly
taking place, so who's to say that they are accurate?
Because he re recorded the history as well as recorded the beliefs of the people
at the time as much as anything. And if he make up a false story, the people
would have strung him up by his kingdoodlesquat.
Well nobody, so
there's no-one who can contradict whatever is written,
Just the thousands of new Chrisitans at the time.
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because rational
thought is beyond you.
I'm making a fool of your lack of knowledge right now.
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing
about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real
&
that it describes real events.
Duke, I think its you who needs to wake up. WAKEY WAKEY!!
And if I'm wrong,
when have you ever been right? WAKEY WAKEY WAKEY!!!
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 05:20:15 PM |
|
|
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
Oh but you did. You can't get your head around the simple fact that if those
who allegedly witnessed it at the time & did not record those events at that
time could make up any old ***** regarding that time & claim it to be true
for that time. Only those who are deluded enough to think that there is any
"truth" are completely unable to see it for what it is. A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because
rational
thought is beyond you.
I'm making a fool of your lack of knowledge right now.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot. Can't open your eyes, won't open your eyes,
can't think for himself, won't think for himself. They say knowledge is
power, that is why you, you religion & your god are fairly impotent. Enjoy
your mass murderering killer god.
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist. You are the
wannabe athiest, but you haven't got the balls to let go of your religious
crutches. Enjoy your mass murderering killer god numbnuts.
Duke - the light in on in his mind - but there's nobody at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 07:29:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:20:15 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
Oh but you did. You can't get your head around the simple fact that if those
who allegedly witnessed it at the time & did not record those events at that
time could make up any old ***** regarding that time & claim it to be true
for that time.
You mean starting with the Lord's resurrection, his walk for 40 days with 500+
live witnesses, the recording of all this and many events by those in the area
reflecting the growth of belief of these people, and the explosive outgrowth of
this miracle, WITHOUT FALTER, for the next 2000 years?
Only those who are deluded enough to think that there is any
"truth" are completely unable to see it for what it is.
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because
rational
thought is beyond you.
I'm making a fool of your lack of knowledge right now.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and me, why
I'm wrong and you're right?
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist.
No you're not. There is zilch, nada, zero evidence to support God not existing.
Therefore you only wish that you could deny/reject the existence of God.
Remember, being an atheist means you deny/reject God's existence. Now try and
support such a silly, childish idea.
You are an atheist wannabe. You can only wish.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 05:51:44 PM |
|
|
You mean starting with the Lord's resurrection, his walk for 40 days with
500+
live witnesses, the recording of all this and many events by those in the
area
reflecting the growth of belief of these people, and the explosive
outgrowth of
this miracle, WITHOUT FALTER, for the next 2000 years?
What resurrection? A man rising from the dead? Really? Is this the same 500+
living witnesses that you didn't think it was important that their names
were recorded? Don't make me laugh. Oh & by the way, your religion is most
definitely on the wane in the UK, so your WITHOUT FALTER statement is a
CROCK OF *****
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for
God
not existing?
Yes actually, let your god show himself. Until that happens, all the
evidence you'll ever need will be right in front of your eyes & ears - i.e.
if you can't see or hear your god, then there is no god. QED. Surely if your
god wished to have me believe in him, he would show himself to me? No? I
have to have faith you say??? How spectacularly convenient!!!
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
You only believe what you want to believe duke, for you the bible is the
word of god & records exactly what happened at the alledged time with no
forgetfulness or embellishments. For the rest of us, its a poorly written
wild crock of *****.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and
me, why
I'm wrong and you're right?
Too easy! You are nothing more than a religiously mind controlled zealot -
you only have to read your posts to see that. You mind is closed off to the
real world & you reside in a land of fantasy & make believe. Regarding your
jewish god, let him show himself to his creation (as stated before). I'm
sure you'll come up with some excuse as to why this won't ever happen, like
never seeking a sign or someother *****, but there is no god. Where is your
evidence to support a god & please don't quote reams of crap from the book
of spite. QED
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist.
No you're not. There is zilch, nada, zero evidence to support God not
existing.
You mean there's no evidence to support your god theory?
You are an atheist wannabe. You can only wish.
No duck, it is you that is the wannabe. You are an atheist wannabe, but you
just lack the courage to free yourself from your religion. You were probably
indoctrinated as a child & suffered years of mental abuse at the hands of
the RCC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 12:42:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:51:44 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
You mean starting with the Lord's resurrection, his walk for 40 days with
500+
live witnesses, the recording of all this and many events by those in the
area
reflecting the growth of belief of these people, and the explosive
outgrowth of
this miracle, WITHOUT FALTER, for the next 2000 years?
What resurrection? A man rising from the dead? Really? Is this the same 500+
living witnesses that you didn't think it was important that their names
were recorded?
I told you. Neither the videocam or the microphone were working that day. The
Roman Garrison power plant was down for refueling also.
Don't make me laugh. Oh & by the way, your religion is most
definitely on the wane in the UK, so your WITHOUT FALTER statement is a
CROCK OF *****
But that's just saying the brits are crazy. For your guys are committing
spiritual suicide, the rest of the world is waking up. The Christian world is
now up to 2.2 billion people.
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for
God not existing?
Yes actually, let your god show himself.
No, no, no. All that says is that if you can't see the accident across town, it
never happened.
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
You only believe what you want to believe duke, for you the bible is the
word of god & records exactly what happened at the alledged time with no
forgetfulness or embellishments. For the rest of us, its a poorly written
wild crock of *****.
Christian: win/no win. Atheist wannabe: Lose/no win. No win comes into play
if there is no almighty God. Now who's the crazy one.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and
me, why I'm wrong and you're right?
Too easy! You are nothing more than a religiously mind controlled zealot
Ok, you can't.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 11:50:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:29:44 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:20:15 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
Oh but you did. You can't get your head around the simple fact that if those
who allegedly witnessed it at the time & did not record those events at that
time could make up any old ***** regarding that time & claim it to be true
for that time.
You mean starting with the Lord's resurrection, his walk for 40 days with 500+
live witnesses, the recording of all this and many events by those in the area
reflecting the growth of belief of these people, and the explosive outgrowth of
this miracle, WITHOUT FALTER, for the next 2000 years?
Only those who are deluded enough to think that there is any
"truth" are completely unable to see it for what it is.
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because
rational
thought is beyond you.
I'm making a fool of your lack of knowledge right now.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and me, why
I'm wrong and you're right?
Reason.
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist.
No you're not. There is zilch, nada, zero evidence to support God not existing.
Therefore you only wish that you could deny/reject the existence of God.
Remember, being an atheist means you deny/reject God's existence. Now try and
support such a silly, childish idea.
You are an atheist wannabe. You can only wish.
Irony meter meltdown.
Religion is the manifestation of wishful thinking.
Prove that Santa or Zeus or Ra or Odin does not exist. Give concrete
evidence.
You are not the one to define what an atheist is.
As you duck & run the point every time, the one who claims there is a
god is responsible for providing the evidence. The one who does not
believe your *****, doesn't have to provide proof. Although, it has
been provided how there is no plausible reason to believe and only
evidence that demonstrates how and why gods and religions were
created. Also, the morality, guidance and wisdom of church history
shows it is a failed hypothesis and a mistaken experiment.
It's a spell that needs breaking.
Atheism is capable of displaying reasonableness in all aspects of
life, but religion has proven it can not.
Using the impossibility of disproving god as proof that god exists is
weak, stupid, dishonest, and wrong.
By your logic, anything absurd can be claimed and it must be assumed
true if it can not be disproved, like the fairy in the garden or the
flying spaghetti monster.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
15 Sep 2007 11:58:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:50:59 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:29:44 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:20:15 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
Oh but you did. You can't get your head around the simple fact that if those
who allegedly witnessed it at the time & did not record those events at that
time could make up any old ***** regarding that time & claim it to be true
for that time.
You mean starting with the Lord's resurrection, his walk for 40 days with 500+
live witnesses, the recording of all this and many events by those in the area
reflecting the growth of belief of these people, and the explosive outgrowth of
this miracle, WITHOUT FALTER, for the next 2000 years?
Only those who are deluded enough to think that there is any
"truth" are completely unable to see it for what it is.
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
We offer fact, logic based on these facts, and reason.
They offer baseless assertions, copouts, personal slanders about those
who don't share their beliefs, other fallacies that attempt to pluck
information out of thin air and even outright lies.
In short, we back up what we say.
They don't.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 12:35:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:50:59 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
Ok, now name one or two.
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
No, all evidence that exists supports the existence of God. There is no known
support for God not existing.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and me, why
I'm wrong and you're right?
Reason.
Nope, still no support on your part. After all this, can you offer any?
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist.
No you're not. There is zilch, nada, zero evidence to support God not existing.
Therefore you only wish that you could deny/reject the existence of God.
Remember, being an atheist means you deny/reject God's existence. Now try and
support such a silly, childish idea.
You are an atheist wannabe. You can only wish.
Irony meter meltdown.
Truth hitting right between your eyes.
Religion is the manifestation of wishful thinking.
Prove that Santa or Zeus or Ra or Odin does not exist. Give concrete
evidence.
I don't have to.
You are not the one to define what an atheist is.
The dictionary does that.
As you duck & run the point every time, the one who claims there is a
god is responsible for providing the evidence.
I already gave you that.
The one who does not
believe your *****, doesn't have to provide proof.
Actually, no. You're the one committing spiritual suicide. I can't stop you.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 07:00:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:35:21 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:50:59 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
Ok, now name one or two.
You've read it a thousand times.
A bunch of stories.
That is all it will ever be. & badly mistranlated at that. Enjoy you mass
murderering killer god.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
500 names first *****.
No, all evidence that exists supports the existence of God. There is no known
support for God not existing.
Weak wishful thinking. All you have in support of god is manmade
fiction. All unverifiable and unbelievable.
Says the man who has repeatedly been shown up to be nothing more than a
religous mind controlled zealot.
Why "nothing more"? What can you show your atheist wannabe friends, and me, why
I'm wrong and you're right?
Reason.
Nope, still no support on your part. After all this, can you offer any?
You're an idiot.
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'm not an atheist wannbe duckshit, I'm just simply an atheist.
No you're not. There is zilch, nada, zero evidence to support God not existing.
Therefore you only wish that you could deny/reject the existence of God.
Remember, being an atheist means you deny/reject God's existence. Now try and
support such a silly, childish idea.
You are an atheist wannabe. You can only wish.
Irony meter meltdown.
Truth hitting right between your eyes.
Actually, it was irony hitting me.
The childish ideas originated in scared imaginative peoples millenia
ago. Them, and you, are afraid to die, and they deluded themselves out
of that problem. The irony of you calling atheism childish, calling
atheists wishful, and that atheists wish they could reject god is a
triple whammy, and my irony meter is only double insulated, the third
one melted it down.
You don't have the balls to look reality in the face.
You aren't brave enough to admit that you have an imaginary friend.
You wish you had the strength of character to openly admit that we are
alone, nobody lives forever, when you die there is no more.
Coward.
Religion is the manifestation of wishful thinking.
Prove that Santa or Zeus or Ra or Odin does not exist. Give concrete
evidence.
I don't have to.
You won't provide a shred for the god you claim does exist, big shock.
You are not the one to define what an atheist is.
The dictionary does that.
Got one?
As you duck & run the point every time, the one who claims there is a
god is responsible for providing the evidence.
I already gave you that.
*****. You don't lie as good as the pro fundies.
The one who does not
believe your *****, doesn't have to provide proof.
Actually, no. You're the one committing spiritual suicide. I can't stop you.
You can't get three brain cells to fire at the same time, or in
sequence. You can't suspend reality and make your fairy tale god
exist.
There's a lot you claim that can't be backed up.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI -did you know he was gay?
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 07:25:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:00:35 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
Ok, now name one or two.
You've read it a thousand times.
No, that's one thing you atheist wannabe's have never offered.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
No, all evidence that exists supports the existence of God. There is no known
support for God not existing.
Weak wishful thinking. All you have in support of god is manmade
fiction. All unverifiable and unbelievable.
Provide support for God not existing.
Nope, still no support on your part. After all this, can you offer any?
You're an idiot.
Oh, you're so easy. Can't you offer anything at all?
Religion is the manifestation of wishful thinking.
Prove that Santa or Zeus or Ra or Odin does not exist. Give concrete
evidence.
I don't have to.
You won't provide a shred for the god you claim does exist, big shock.
Big bang.
You are not the one to define what an atheist is.
The dictionary does that.
Got one?
Yep - an ***** that denies the existence of God contrary of all evidence.
As you duck & run the point every time, the one who claims there is a
god is responsible for providing the evidence.
I already gave you that.
*****. You don't lie as good as the pro fundies.
And we're all "gooder" than atheist wannabe's.
The one who does not
believe your *****, doesn't have to provide proof.
Actually, no. You're the one committing spiritual suicide. I can't stop you.
You can't get three brain cells to fire at the same time, or in
sequence. You can't suspend reality and make your fairy tale god
exist.
There's a lot you claim that can't be backed up.
I keep trying to get you to support that God doesn't exist.
You can't.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 09:04:26 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:l3ire3hu9bo4jjjujcevsuccjpf793vp4r@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:00:35 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Yeah, sure.
I can imagine the next time I'm giving evidence for the prosecution at
court, I could simply tell them,
"We have several hundred witnesses Your Honour, but I can't give you their
names, you'll just have to take my word for it."
" Here , look.
-This report mentions that they all exist"
How far do you think that would get me, idiot?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 05:28:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:04:26 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote:
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Yeah, sure.
I can imagine the next time I'm giving evidence for the prosecution at
court, I could simply tell them,
"We have several hundred witnesses Your Honour, but I can't give you their
names, you'll just have to take my word for it."
" Here , look.
-This report mentions that they all exist"
How far do you think that would get me, idiot?
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 08:01:07 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kklse35nuv1uu367rouioo7bl9v9mvhevb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:04:26 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Yeah, sure.
I can imagine the next time I'm giving evidence for the prosecution at
court, I could simply tell them,
"We have several hundred witnesses Your Honour, but I can't give you their
names, you'll just have to take my word for it."
" Here , look.
-This report mentions that they all exist"
How far do you think that would get me, idiot?
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Technically, that should have been impossible.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 12:46:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:01:07 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote:
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Yeah, sure.
I can imagine the next time I'm giving evidence for the prosecution at
court, I could simply tell them,
"We have several hundred witnesses Your Honour, but I can't give you their
names, you'll just have to take my word for it."
" Here , look.
-This report mentions that they all exist"
How far do you think that would get me, idiot?
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Technically, that should have been impossible.
Remember, 200 years from now, what you say today will be inadmissible because
you can't be trusted to tell the truth, according to you. Even a judge
understands you can't produce eye witnesses from 200 years ago.
Just think how many witnesses swear on a bible, a book no younger 1700 years.
You lose.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 04:44:34 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q6fte35fdbud004ipl1vnu2sl3td6l10mg@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:01:07 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com>
wrote:
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Yeah, sure.
I can imagine the next time I'm giving evidence for the prosecution at
court, I could simply tell them,
"We have several hundred witnesses Your Honour, but I can't give you
their
names, you'll just have to take my word for it."
" Here , look.
-This report mentions that they all exist"
How far do you think that would get me, idiot?
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Technically, that should have been impossible.
Remember, 200 years from now, what you say today will be inadmissible
because
you can't be trusted to tell the truth, according to you.
If you're referring to the fact that, being human, with an imperfect memory
and imperfect recollection, then yes, I cannot be trusted to tell the truth,
just like anyone else.
But you have forgotten to consider one thing - corroboration.
Corroboration bolsters eyewitness evidence.
Where's your corroboration for your eyewitness testimony, duke?
We're all waiting.
Even a judge
understands you can't produce eye witnesses from 200 years ago.
So why don't you apply that understanding to your 2000 year old witnesses?
Just think how many witnesses swear on a bible, a book no younger 1700
years.
And the relevance of this statement is what, exactly?
You lose.
In yer dreams.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:44:34 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote:
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Technically, that should have been impossible.
Remember, 200 years from now, what you say today will be inadmissible
because you can't be trusted to tell the truth, according to you.
If you're referring to the fact that, being human, with an imperfect memory
and imperfect recollection, then yes, I cannot be trusted to tell the truth,
just like anyone else.
But you have forgotten to consider one thing - corroboration.
Corroboration bolsters eyewitness evidence.
Where's your corroboration for your eyewitness testimony, duke?
We're all waiting.
The early church fathers, the recording of actual events by others, the
recording of events by the authors, the recording of the beliefs of the local
populace.
Even a judge
understands you can't produce eye witnesses from 200 years ago.
So why don't you apply that understanding to your 2000 year old witnesses?
We're talking belief in God, not a civil court.
Just think how many witnesses swear on a bible, a book no younger 1700
years.
And the relevance of this statement is what, exactly?
Swearing on the bible brings an element of truth to the testimony. You should
know that.
You lose.
In yer dreams.
I don't have to dream it, I know it.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 05:58:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:57:12 -0500, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<ostte39506c462cm0g1u6pr1hn68ueoqsv@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:44:34 +0100, "Steve O" <hooray!@nospamhere.com> wrote:
If the event you were referring to was 200 years ago, it would work.
You're a bigger idiot than I thought.
Technically, that should have been impossible.
Remember, 200 years from now, what you say today will be inadmissible
because you can't be trusted to tell the truth, according to you.
If you're referring to the fact that, being human, with an imperfect memory
and imperfect recollection, then yes, I cannot be trusted to tell the truth,
just like anyone else.
But you have forgotten to consider one thing - corroboration.
Corroboration bolsters eyewitness evidence.
Where's your corroboration for your eyewitness testimony, duke?
We're all waiting.
The early church fathers, the recording of actual events by others, the
recording of events by the authors, the recording of the beliefs of the local
populace.
Which events were recorded by others?
Even a judge
understands you can't produce eye witnesses from 200 years ago.
So why don't you apply that understanding to your 2000 year old witnesses?
We're talking belief in God, not a civil court.
So Islam is true because it has believers.
Just think how many witnesses swear on a bible, a book no younger 1700
years.
And the relevance of this statement is what, exactly?
Swearing on the bible brings an element of truth to the testimony. You should
know that.
Why would it? Do liars stop lying just because they swear on a Bible?
Does God intervene and make it impossible for them to lie?
You lose.
In yer dreams.
I don't have to dream it, I know it.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
18 Sep 2007 05:16:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:58:15 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
The early church fathers, the recording of actual events by others, the
recording of events by the authors, the recording of the beliefs of the local
populace.
Which events were recorded by others?
The ones they personally experienced.
Swearing on the bible brings an element of truth to the testimony. You should
know that.
Why would it? Do liars stop lying just because they swear on a Bible?
Does God intervene and make it impossible for them to lie?
It all depends if they experience a conscience.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jemcd 1" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
16 Sep 2007 09:29:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:25:28 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:00:35 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
It's pretty clear you are the deluded one. Can you offer some support for God
not existing?
Reason.
Ok, now name one or two.
You've read it a thousand times.
No, that's one thing you atheist wannabe's have never offered.
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Ya, sure, none had names, no contemporary records exist, it's an
implausible claim, but you say it's true therefore it's true.
Get a grip.
No, all evidence that exists supports the existence of God. There is no known
support for God not existing.
Weak wishful thinking. All you have in support of god is manmade
fiction. All unverifiable and unbelievable.
Provide support for God not existing.
You are so bereft of intelligence that you think that challenge is
meaningful. It's a ***** ploy.
You can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist either,
why don't you understand this?
The negative is unprovable.
The positive claim bears the burden of proof.
You know that, you must know that, you're just dishonest.
Nope, still no support on your part. After all this, can you offer any?
You're an idiot.
Oh, you're so easy. Can't you offer anything at all?
Christianity is a cobbled copy of previous religions, with virtually
all the main aspects repeated from religions that have been summarily
discarded by everyone millenia ago. It is not original.
It is scientifically flawed in statement of scientific fact.
It was written by a large number of authors with seperate agendas and
beliefs and highly discordant information. No historical records
corroborate any of the miracles or wild-***** claims in the bible.
Apologetics twist logic and create their own reality to support empty
claims and reasoning that is missing something essential: reasoning.
The religion prays on people's fears and offers the only way out, with
lies.
Religion is the manifestation of wishful thinking.
Prove that Santa or Zeus or Ra or Odin does not exist. Give concrete
evidence.
I don't have to.
You won't provide a shred for the god you claim does exist, big shock.
Big bang.
You are not the one to define what an atheist is.
The dictionary does that.
Got one?
Yep - an ***** that denies the existence of God contrary of all evidence.
Nope, that's from your subscription to inbred fundy monthly.
As you duck & run the point every time, the one who claims there is a
god is responsible for providing the evidence.
I already gave you that.
*****. You don't lie as good as the pro fundies.
And we're all "gooder" than atheist wannabe's.
You've never met one of those. You might be one, but you've never met
one.
The one who does not
believe your *****, doesn't have to provide proof.
Actually, no. You're the one committing spiritual suicide. I can't stop you.
You can't get three brain cells to fire at the same time, or in
sequence. You can't suspend reality and make your fairy tale god
exist.
There's a lot you claim that can't be backed up.
I keep trying to get you to support that God doesn't exist.
You can't.
I have plenty of evidence that religions are *****, and it's all
provided by the ***** religions.
There's a circularity you have to admire, it's just like yours, yet
this one is true. Back at ya jebus boy.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 01:58:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:25:28 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
No, all evidence that exists supports the existence of God.
That is a claim, not evidence.
Do you have any evidence for your claim?
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter)
B.A.A.W.A.
Convicted by Earthquack
"The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long
enough."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
17 Sep 2007 05:39:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:29:07 +0200, jemcd <1> wrote:
Why would I or anyone else believe you?
Reason.
500 names first *****.
Sorry, *****, names are not the issue.
Ya, sure, none had names, no contemporary records exist, it's an
implausible claim, but you say it's true therefore it's true.
Get a grip.
We're talking about evidence that God exists. The resurrection of Christ is
God's promise to me. I don't care if I know the names of the eye witnesses. 2.2
billion people alive and well today believe.
Provide support for God not existing.
You are so bereft of intelligence that you think that challenge is
meaningful. It's a ***** ploy.
I say God exists. You say God does not. I have supporting evidence. You
don't. YOU are a ***** ploy.
You can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist either,
why don't you understand this?
The negative is unprovable.
And all evidence to be found says he does.
The positive claim bears the burden of proof.
I don't have to prove anything to you. It's your funeral.
You know that, you must know that, you're just dishonest.
No, I'm just showing you that you have no foundation for your beliefs. You
can't see the accident on the other side of town, so there's no accident.
Nope, still no support on your part. After all this, can you offer any?
You're an idiot.
Oh, you're so easy. Can't you offer anything at all?
Christianity is a cobbled copy of previous religions, with virtually
all the main aspects repeated from religions that have been summarily
discarded by everyone millenia ago. It is not original.
God is the original. It's easy to suggest that pagan acts, such as to fire,
were God's first direction to forest dwellers towards the existence of some
supreme being.
It is scientifically flawed in statement of scientific fact.
Nope, you have no scientific facts.
It was written by a large number of authors with seperate agendas and
beliefs and highly discordant information. No historical records
corroborate any of the miracles or wild-***** claims in the bible.
The bible is a historical record.
Yep - an ***** that denies the existence of God contrary of all evidence.
Nope, that's from your subscription to inbred fundy monthly.
Is this one you read?
I keep trying to get you to support that God doesn't exist.
You can't.
I have plenty of evidence that religions are *****, and it's all
provided by the ***** religions.
There's a circularity you have to admire, it's just like yours, yet
this one is true. Back at ya jebus boy.
I have nothing to prove. I believe.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: skyeyes - time to wake up |
14 Sep 2007 11:19:41 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:29:20 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:55:28 +0100, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerscheggers@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
The earliest Gospel. We accept 65AD, a mere 32 years after Christ
died. And maybe only 8 years.
So the author of the earliest gospel could after 8 years could recall
every single word spoken & every single act in minute detail ? & if a "mere" 32
years after jebus kicked the bucket, it probably would not have been
written by the said author as they would most likely be dead. So the story is
told by word of mouth. & then 32 (or possibly 8) years, we're expected to
believe the author didn't forget a single thing & didn't embellish the facts for
political reasons at all?
Maybe he forgot a lot, and what he published is what he remembered. Gosh,
turkeys like you never think of that.
But seriously, bubba, what he/they recorded was also the current beliefs
of the people that was developing out of the events, not simply a word of mouth
transmission from 8-32 years before.
You miss the point entirely duckshit (so no suprises there then).
Oh, I didn't miss any point.
By your
own admission, the gospel wasn't written at the time of the events allegedly
taking place, so who's to say that they are accurate?
Because he re recorded the history as well as recorded the beliefs of the people
at the time as much as anything. And if he make up a false story, the people
would have strung him up by his kingdoodlesquat.
Well nobody, so
there's no-one who can contradict whatever is written,
Just the thousands of new Chrisitans at the time.
But then again, dorks like you never think of that, mostly because rational
thought is beyond you.
I'm making a fool of your lack of knowledge right now.
Earl, the day you make a fool of anyone besides yourself will be the
day the world ends.
& please don't start with the miracle crap. The only miraculous thing
about
the bible is that there are still simpletons who still believe it is real
&
that it describes real events.
Duke, I think its you who needs to wake up. WAKEY WAKEY!!
And if I'm wrong,
when have you ever been right? WAKEY WAKEY WAKEY!!!
Every time. I've never been wrong with you atheist wannabe's.
I'd tell you to think again, Earl, but I've never seen any indication
that you've ever thought to begin with.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
| | | | | |
