Reply to note from John W <john_weathery47@yahoo.com> Thu, 21 Aug 2003
11:44:34 -0700 >
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:22:13 GMT,
walksalone@dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.inc (walksalone) wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 06:35:52 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:52:03 -0500, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<phf@ghg.net> wrote:
Apparently, some are unaware of (or in denial
regarding) the mythical nature of the christian
bible and the being / entity of national pretense /
delusion referred to as God (in the national
motto, and on American coinage, money, and
assorted monuments, here and there) ...
One of the easiest things to prove is the existence of God.
Really now??? Let's look at that, can you
A: Define a god in any manner that is not contradictory [all those
omnis are in fact contradictory whether you admit it or not]
Not at all. And you have the right to your warped opinion. You try to
put Almighty God in a box. You cannot.
Well, there is truth there, the non-existent can't be put in a box,
but we weren't talking about where we gave it an enemma itwold fit in
a penny matchbox, we were talking about defining it is such a way
there ae no contradictions. Your assertions without evidence do not
provide that information, so it is nice of you to have conceded the
point that you can't even define your gods in a basic way. Now how
many lines more are you going to waste to prove that?
B: Can you provide evidence, real world evidence that there is a god?
No evidence on earth or in heave will convince you. If Jesus knocked
Nice lie, but if a god exists, that god would know exactly what I
would need in the way of evidence. You being a cardboard imiotaion of
a human lack that knowledge so rather than admit you don'tknow what it
would take to convionce me, attempt to equate me with you & demonize
me by saying that I would refiuse evidence provided for me by a god.
on your door in an hour, levitating a foot off the ground,, and showed
you His scars, you'd slam the door in His face. YOu cannot convince
those who aren't interested. You simply aren't interested.
But I'm interested, & no, that wouldn't do for a magician can do that.
Now, are there any other false standards of evidence you want to try
to apply to me?
C: Just why the hell haven't you for if you did there coukd be no
atheits anywhere in the world. A god would be known to exist.
There is evidence for those who are interested.
Wrong answer green persimmon lips, the answer is there is no evidence
until it has been provided. I've seen you make this claim before, &
you still refuse to provide that evidence. How special you must be if
you are the only one wioth it.
"For the believer, no proof is required; for the non-believer, no
proof is adequate."
So say you, but then, as usual you squeak much & say nothing. As you
like to whine, you can't read my mind & your retreating into worn out
cliches indicates you know it.
I even won this debate with a few seminary professors who said, "There
is no real proof of God beyond faith" I showed them there was, and
they agreed that I had showed them something new.
Right, & they haven't bleated this to the world because????????
I was happy that such learned men could learn from one of their
students.
If they are scholars, they wouldn't care who taught/showed them
someting new.
Nonsense. Scholars have their blind spots like everyone else. I have
interacted with NUMEROUS scientists who were LEARNED men; when I tried
*****, until you start providing names this will be treated like
the remainder of y9our self-aggrandizment, the horse ***** it is. You
can eat tha t horse apple, neither me nor the majority of the posters
on arcb are buying that lie anymore.
to show them evidence for Christianity, I was brushed aside, with my evidence, with a mere, "not interested." > > I'd
ask "Why not?"
"I'm an atheist; I wouldn't care if He came in here and walked on
water!"
This is typical of the interaction I've had with "closed-minded
scholars". Some of them were even in seminary.
Being this "good news is not out" & being you are back to using
"nameless authorities", we can just cjhlak it up as another lie.
Hahahahahahaha! I could say it's 11:39 AM Seattle time, and you'd find
some way to call it a lie.
Right now, yes that would be a lie, but not at 11:39AM PDT. That can
be checked & verified. In your case I would look at the headers, &
that is based on your penchant for lieing.
YOu fool only yourself, demon.
I know your name jezebeth, & it fits you. Took no time at to find it,
so you are so smart, what is mine [hint, I don't have one & no, your
saying so does not change that, yours is the wrong mythology for me].
You see jezzie, if there was evidence for a god, & it was the
xian/Islamic/Judaic blood drinker you idiots of those myths would be
screaming it from the roftops & having your own little god back jihad
against all the non-believers.
When the Christian "Jihad" begins, He will lead the charge, and you
will be helpless to resist. Until then, make all the noise you with.
Pity the fool that tries it, you see, I don't play fair & there will
be more than one body besides mine that died in "god's name".
You fool no one but yourself.
Quit being so hard on yourself, though I can't argue ypour point.
Indeed, you fool no one but yourself.
This of course excludes the few sane xians I've met, as well as the
few sane members of the other mythologies that gve a blood thirsty god
the spot of honor.
You wouldn't know a sane person if he laughed in your silly face.
Well, I know you aren't one based on your conduct here. I suspct if
you had the guts or believed you wouldn't be caught you would just be
anothe Son of Sam.
BTW, it is possible to prove the possabilty of a god if you change the
definitions in use by a language. Care to post that evidence of
scholarly one?
The spiritual gifts prove God exists.
Pettiness, selfcentered-ness, pompous noises, obnoxiousness, at least
in your case, foulness of mouth & habits, sloppy thinking, lieing, I
could waste more time but frankly jezeebeth, you are not worth the
effort.
I have apologized several times for my emotional outbursts; we all
& never meant the first word of those apologies, after as many times
as you have played the injured innocent party when you are not, your
apologies are becomoing accepted as part & parcel of your lies &
attempts to manipulate others.
have them; at least I'm honest about mine. Your false accusations,
however, are a badge of honor. And I thank you. Those who know me know
In your cae, a badge of lead with a mist of gold paint over it. You
have no homnor based on your postings,
I'm not a liar. You don't know me, so you have NO clue. YOu call your
You provide the clues everytime you post a lie on the usenet system,
like the one claiming to be able to prove god exists. Now back to
those definitions, or in your case, daffynisions.
erroneous assumptions "fact", while I stand behind the "inside
information" I've shared. I should not have told some of it, such as
No you don't, you claim to have inside information, but when it is
examined it is found to be simply unfounded assertions, after that it
gets ugly.
the MMS evidence, but it's done now.
You have no evidence, never have & likely never will. I can't forsee
you getting off your lard ***** & actually doing some research &
learning what you are talking about.
And frankly, walks, you aren't worth any more time.
You never have been worth anyone's time on ARCB, but you pretend you
are.
walksalone who has to give jezzie credit when it is due, it sure can
play the injured inniocent.
.
