Sad News About Duke
Budikka666
It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
Dookie Whirled™ establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory", but despite repeated requests that he
support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
experts did" and then of course when we ask him to support *that*, he
develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
to be real.
The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real, even though it's pure
insanity to insist upon the one and deny the other, is that if he
does, his whole façade of lies comes tumbling down, and Dookie cannot
let that happen because it would be the end of Dookie Whirled™.
And there you have it. So as you go about your rational lives in full
enjoyment thereof, please spare a thought for those less fortunate
(like sufferers of nanocephalia, such as Dooklie).
You can reach him at the hospice of St Lillies-in-the-Field, but under
no circumstances send money. Dookie has no need of it since his god
has undertaken to provide everything for him, even though he doesn't
supply everything to the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, the
liberals, no matter how hard they pray for relief.
If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
at the moment.
Budikka
AZ Nomad
>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
alethophobia is fear of truth.
( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
A much more common term for the disease duke has is "christianity."
It is a combination of the fear of truth, fear of reality, fear of
life and living, and hatred of everything and everyone.
Patrick
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhk4tot.7...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
Ya know, I've always been suspicious of marshmellows.....
duke
wrote:
>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
My opinion is always based on evidence.
> These
>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
scientific fact.
>In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
>any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
>evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
>Dookie Whirled� establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
> but despite repeated requests that he
>support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
>experts did"
There you go.
> and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
>, he
>develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
>Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
>His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
>because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
>point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
>the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
>Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
>to be real.
>
>The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
The experts say it.
OH, well, when you can actually use some facts in your arguments, let me know.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
>
>alethophobia is fear of truth.
>
>( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
I ..............AM NOT............afraid of bud the dud, a big mushy
marshmellow.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
And manages always to contravene it
>
> > These
> >mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
> scientific fact.
Why are you so scared of others being able to do what you so regularly
try, but fail, to do?
>
> >In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
> >any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
> >evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
> >Dookie Whirled� establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
>
> >Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
> >"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>
> > but despite repeated requests that he
> >support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
> >experts did"
>
> There you go.
Dookie's total lack of any citation of those experts saying any such
thing suggests that Dookie, the pukie, has no access to any such
evidence.
>
> > and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
> It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
Which "bible" is that? There are so many of them all saying different
things that "my bible" doesn't cut it.
>
> >, he
> >develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
> >Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
Duke the puke may have thought he was on the moon, but the evidence says
he was h=not one of those few who ever made it there.
>
> >His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
> >because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
> >point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
> >the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
> >Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
> >to be real.
> >
> >The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
(snipped by Puke, so I snipped Puke)
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:17:49 -0600, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> >wrote:
> >>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
> >>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
> >
> >
> >alethophobia is fear of truth.
> >
> >( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
>
> I ..............AM NOT............afraid of bud the dud, a big mushy
> marshmellow.
It is truth and reality you fear, Puke, and that you should fear.
Andrew W
news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>
>> These
>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to
> establish a
> scientific fact.
>
Its unlikely that you would know much about scientific facts.
Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience of
an angry humanoid god.
>
>>In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
>>any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
>>evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
>>Dookie WhirledT establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
>
>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>
You mean Bible apologists and traditionalists.
Unless you research the Bible critically you are not a true Bible
researcher.
And theologians don't establish facts, they establish interpretations and
beliefs.
>
>> but despite repeated requests that he
>>support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
>>experts did"
>
> There you go.
>
>> and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
> It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
>
>>, he
>>develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
>>Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me
> there.
>
>>His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
>>because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
>>point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
>>the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
>>Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
>>to be real.
>>
>>The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
>
> The experts say it.
>
Theologians and Bible zealots are not experts in anything except rendering
dodgy Bible interpretations which give rise to more dodgy sects and
denominations.
John Locke
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>does, his whole fa�ade of lies comes tumbling down, and Dookie cannot
>let that happen because it would be the end of Dookie Whirled�.
>
>And there you have it. So as you go about your rational lives in full
>enjoyment thereof, please spare a thought for those less fortunate
>(like sufferers of nanocephalia, such as Dooklie).
>
>You can reach him at the hospice of St Lillies-in-the-Field, but under
>no circumstances send money. Dookie has no need of it since his god
>has undertaken to provide everything for him, even though he doesn't
>supply everything to the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, the
>liberals, no matter how hard they pray for relief.
>
>If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
>we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
>at the moment.
>
When I first saw your subject title I thought that maybe poor old
Dukems had actually kicked the bucket and that I'd have to think of
something nice to say in memoriam. Now that's really scary !
Jimbo
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
often does, liar pedophile earl.
Kenny McCormack
Duke uses his own version of language - a language in which the word
that he spells e v i d e n c e means what the rest of us mean when we
write the word b u l l s h i t.
Once you understand the sort of language constraint under which he
works, it all begins to make sense. Well, sort of...
Yap
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
> > These
> >mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
> scientific fact.
>
> >In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
> >any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
> >evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
> >Dookie Whirled™ establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
> >Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
> >"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
evidence.
>
> > but despite repeated requests that he
> >support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
> >experts did"
>
> There you go.
>
> > and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
> It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
Your house broom can fly as in Harry Potter?
>
> >, he
> >develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
> >Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
>
> >His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
> >because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
> >point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
> >the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
> >Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
> >to be real.
>
> >The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
>
> The experts say it.
>
> OH, well, when you can actually use some facts in your arguments, let me know.
religion.
Yap
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:17:49 -0600, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
> >>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> >alethophobia is fear of truth.
>
> >( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
>
> I ..............AM NOT............afraid of bud the dud, a big mushy
> marshmellow.
panam...@hotmail.com
snip, but just for bandwidth..
Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Syd M.
> wrote:
>
> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
You left out a 'not.'
> > These
> >mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
> scientific fact.
>
But you do it all the time.
> >In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
> >any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
> >evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
> >Dookie Whirled™ establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
> >Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
> >"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>
Nope.
> > but despite repeated requests that he
> >support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
> >experts did"
>
> There you go.
>
> > and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
> It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
>
> >, he
> >develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
> >Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
>
> >His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
> >because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
> >point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
> >the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
> >Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
> >to be real.
>
> >The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
>
> The experts say it.
>
Nope.
> OH, well, when you can actually use some facts in your arguments, let me know.
>
>
Yeah, Dork... When you get around to it, let us know.
PDW
Syd M.
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:17:49 -0600, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia. These
> >>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> >alethophobia is fear of truth.
>
> >( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
>
> I ..............AM NOT............afraid of bud the dud, a big mushy
> marshmellow.
>
>
One word too many, Dork.
That 'not' needs to be deleted.
PDW
Budikka666
> >let that happen because it would be the end of Dookie Whirled™.
>
> >And there you have it. So as you go about your rational lives in full
> >enjoyment thereof, please spare a thought for those less fortunate
> >(like sufferers of nanocephalia, such as Dooklie).
>
> >You can reach him at the hospice of St Lillies-in-the-Field, but under
> >no circumstances send money. Dookie has no need of it since his god
> >has undertaken to provide everything for him, even though he doesn't
> >supply everything to the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, the
> >liberals, no matter how hard they pray for relief.
>
> >If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
> >we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
> >at the moment.
>
> When I first saw your subject title I thought that maybe poor old
> Dukems had actually kicked the bucket and that I'd have to think of
> something nice to say in memoriam. Now that's really scary !
I've never been a fan of saying nice things about people I disliked or
detested simply because they died. In most instances I wouldn't say
anything, but I think I'd make an exception for Doofus Duke!
Budikka
Budikka666
Ain't I a stinka?!
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> My opinion is always based on evidence.
Funny, then, isn't it, that this "evidence" you always LIE you have,
never sees the light of day? Funny, then, isn't it, that you say here
you have evidence, but in other messages you've outright admitted you
have none and that you position is based entirely and purely on
faith! So once again you've been caught lying in the news groups.
> > These
> >mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> >truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
> scientific fact.
You really are the dumbest cluck in the hen house, aren't you? How
may times, Dip-shit, have I expressly stated this has nothing to do
with science? How many times have I said this has nothing to do with
whether the Bible tells the truth or not? How many times have I
expressly made it clear to you that this has solely to do with
statements *you* have made and the RUN AWAY when asked to support
them?
You can keep running, hiding, side-stepping, dancing around, tossing
out straw men and making excuses all you want, but the fact remains
that you made a statement which you manifestly cannot support.
> >In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
> >any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
> >evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
> >Dookie Whirled™ establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
> >Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
> >"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
Once again you chant your idiotic mantra, but they have not
established any such thing. **YOU** have "established that (non)fact"
by your repeated posting of it, and then RUNNING whenever I ask you to
support it by naming these so-called experts and relating their
objective rational for it.
never once have you found the guts to face me and support *your*
statement and explain how what we term Genesis 1:32 is pure fiction
but the very enxt sentece is pure fact.
So once again you're lying. There are no experts involved here since
you cannot even name one. So no, expertise isn't involved on your
side - again. What's involved is your repeated blind chanting of a
statement which has been shown to be totally unsupported and
completely irrational, for which you've been repeatedly asked to
provide objective support and from which you've RUN AWAY every single
time I've made that request.
The fact that you;re too fundamentally stupid to see this is what's
making you the laughingstock of Usenet.
So please don't ever repeat your lie that you're only here to help,
because here you are deliberately obfuscating and avoiding instead of
helping. Here you are with an opportunity to help and you're RUNNING
from it as fast as your cowardly chicken legs can carry you.
> > but despite repeated requests that he
> >support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
> >experts did"
>
> There you go.
>
> > and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
> It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
Ri-ight! Well guess what, coward? *My* Bible has an intro which says
precisely the opposite of what yours does, so I guess we're at a
stalemate and only actual objective evidence or intelligent rationale
will clear this up. I've presented mine and you're RUNNING from
presenting yours, so which side do you think people will believe,
moron?
> >, he
> >develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
> >Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
Don't mistake my mooning you for tripping, dimwit. The fact is you've
made a statement and you're RUNNING now that I've asked that you
support it. How do you think that looks, doofus? It looks like
you're a liar and a coward - another limp Peter at the passion, and it
gives the lie to all your other lies about me running from you when
people can see that I'm in your face every day on this topic and
you're doing nothing but crawfishing.
> >His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
> >because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
> >point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
> >the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
> >Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
> >to be real.
>
> >The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
>
> The experts say it.
The experts have said that Terah is fiction? Well then that makes
Abram fiction. Thanks for the admission, moron! LoL!
Budikka
Les Hellawell
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
>My opinion is always based on evidence.
Yes
We have observed you over many years and each of us has formed
the same conclusions independantly. These conclusions have been peer
reviewed and observations have ben repeated over some considerable
time allowing us to establish and verify the scientific fact you are:
1 An idiot
2 A serial liar
You opinions are based on this scientifically proven evidence
>
>> These
>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
>I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to establish a
>scientific fact.
As I have just demonstrated our scientific conclusions are based
on sound observations by several people over several years
>
>>In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
>>any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
>>evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
>>Dookie Whirled� establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
>
>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>
>Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
Right, so it is a Biblical fact that the Genesis myth was invented
before written history began.
Which means the story must have been passed down the generations
orally before it was first written down.
>
>> but despite repeated requests that he
>>support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
>>experts did"
>
>There you go.
Thus Duke admits he is not an expert on the Bible and
accepts the 'expert' established fact that the Genesis myth was
not originally written down (pre-history)
>> and then of course when we ask him to support *that*
>
>It's stated in the intro to Genesis in my bible.
Written by whom?
Another catholic LOL!
>>, he
>>develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
>>Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
>That must have been the day you went to the moon and thought you saw me there.
>>His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
>>because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
>>point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
>>the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
>>Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
>>to be real.
>>
>>The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real
>
>The experts say it.
>
>OH, well, when you can actually use some facts in your arguments, let me know.
Your mental illness is an established fact. You are the only one who
cannot see it but then you are not one of the elect are you?
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from: YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County
duke
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> <budi...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>
>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>>> These
>>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>>
>> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to
>> establish a scientific fact.
>Its unlikely that you would know much about scientific facts.
But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use unscientific
data to establish a scientific fact.
>Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience of
>an angry humanoid god.
Science confirms the existence of God.
>>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>
>You mean Bible apologists and traditionalists.
No, the bible researchers.
>Unless you research the Bible critically you are not a true Bible
>researcher.
>And theologians don't establish facts, they establish interpretations and
>beliefs.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
The evidence says that you lack the intelligence God gave the average doorknob.
You show that by your inability to do or say anything but insult others.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>
> God can't be proved,
And yet, you still bother people with it.
> but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
Since there is no evidence, only your delusion drives you.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 6:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
> >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>
> The evidence
You have no evidence, period.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 5:36�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>
>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>Funny, then, isn't it, that this "evidence" you always LIE you have,
>never sees the light of day?
You're just too slow to see that light, dud.
> Funny, then, isn't it, that you say here
>you have evidence, but in other messages you've outright admitted you
>have none
You better crank your brain up, dud. I have evidence, no proof, and so the
evidence drives my faith.
Better luck not dropping your ass to the ground next time.
>You really are the dumbest cluck in the hen house, aren't you? How
>may times, Dip-shit, have I expressly stated this has nothing to do
>with science? How many times have I said this has nothing to do with
>whether the Bible tells the truth or not? How many times have I
>expressly made it clear to you that this has solely to do with
>statements *you* have made and the RUN AWAY when asked to support
>them?
Dud, all I see you trying to do is to use unscientific data to prove a
scientific point. You can bullshit your fellow atheists, but I'm too smart for
you.
>You can keep running, hiding, side-stepping, dancing around, tossing
>out straw men and making excuses all you want, but the fact remains
>that you made a statement which you manifestly cannot support.
I have to protect your fellow atheists from you.
>never once have you found the guts to face me and support *your*
>statement and explain how what we term Genesis 1:32 is pure fiction
>but the very enxt sentece is pure fact.
See how you show your ass. I never said anything about Gen 1-11 being pure
fiction. I said it was unscientific. It's also been declared pre-history.
duke
>On Jan 4, 5:38�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>
>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
Jimbo
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 6:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
> >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>
> The evidence says
You have no evidence, period.
panam...@hotmail.com
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
� doorknob comparison is not an insult?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
�R.L.Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 5:38�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >snip, but just for bandwidth..
> >
> >Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
> >thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>
> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>
� and another one.
Budikka666
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:21:27 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 5:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >Funny, then, isn't it, that this "evidence" you always LIE you have,
> >never sees the light of day?
>
> You're just too slow to see that light, dud.
Once again when you could present evidence if you actually had any,
YOU RUN AWAY. Thanks for proving repeatedly that you LIE when you
claim to have evidence.
> > Funny, then, isn't it, that you say here
> >you have evidence, but in other messages you've outright admitted you
> >have none
>
> You better crank your brain up, dud. I have evidence, no proof, and so the
> evidence drives my faith.
Once again when you could present evidence if you actually had any,
YOU RUN AWAY. Thanks for proving repeatedly that you LIE when you
claim to have evidence.
> Better luck not dropping your ass to the ground next time.
>
> >You really are the dumbest cluck in the hen house, aren't you? How
> >may times, Dip-shit, have I expressly stated this has nothing to do
> >with science? How many times have I said this has nothing to do with
> >whether the Bible tells the truth or not? How many times have I
> >expressly made it clear to you that this has solely to do with
> >statements *you* have made and the RUN AWAY when asked to support
> >them?
>
> Dud, all I see you trying to do is to use unscientific data to prove a
> scientific point. You can bullshit your fellow atheists, but I'm too smart for
> you.
As you've been endlessly gobsmacked, this has nothing to do with
anything other than proving you're a LYING, cowardly, piece of
ignorant, vacuous, pig shit and you've proven that handsomely once
again, as I knew you would! LoL!
> >You can keep running, hiding, side-stepping, dancing around, tossing
> >out straw men and making excuses all you want, but the fact remains
> >that you made a statement which you manifestly cannot support.
>
> I have to protect your fellow atheists from you.
They need no protection from me and they kick your stupid ass as
routinely as I do.
> >never once have you found the guts to face me and support *your*
> >statement and explain how what we term Genesis 1:32 is pure fiction
> >but the very next sentence is pure fact.
>
> See how you show your ass. I never said anything about Gen 1-11 being pure
> fiction. I said it was unscientific.
So dinosaurs are unscientific because they're prehistoric? LoL! You
really are the dumbest cluck in the henhouse, aren't you? Why you
insist on proving it to us on a daily basis is the real mystery here.
> It's also been declared pre-history.
Sez you, but of course every time you've been requested to support
this statement you've RUN AWAY proving it to be a LIE! LoL!
Every time you've been requested to support this thoroughly fictional
division between Genesis 1:32 and Genesis 12 you've RUN AWAY proving
*that* to be a LIE as well! LoL!
So once again I've proven two things:
1. You're LYING when you keep claiming you want a discussion, because
*every* *single* *time* I open a discussion, such as this one on your
rationale for declaring Genesis 1 - 11 to be prehisotric, you cannot
support it and instead of trying to outline your rational and support
your position, you keep RUNNING and HIDING from every question, every
challenge, every request. You cannot provide evidence, you cannot
rationalize your position, you cannot discuss anything, all you can do
is chant juvenile idiot mantras and RUN AWAY from every and all
requests that you support your position.
2. You're the most worthless human being on Usenet. You're a coward,
you're a liar, you're a hypocrite, you're not even close to being a
Christian which you also LIE about, and you cannot support a *single*
*claim* *you* *make*.
Thanks for helping me prove this in 2010 just as you helped me prove
it repeatedly in 2009.
I'm done with you until the next time I get bored and kick your dumb
ass. I'll add this thread to the list of ones in which you've RUN
AWAY from supporting your claims, Pig Gumbo.
Budikka
John Locke
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Jan 4, 5:38�pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>>
>>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
>>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>
>She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>
...her brain seems very much alive to me, but then again I'm not
looking out through a cloud of self imposed gawd vapor.
Andrew W
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>>>
>
>>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>
> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>
Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
It was humans that always liked to worship, and it was false ego based gods
that wanted worship.
>
>>>> These
>>>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>>>
>>> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to
>>> establish a scientific fact.
>
>>Its unlikely that you would know much about scientific facts.
>
> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
> unscientific
> data to establish a scientific fact.
>
You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
you're smarter than everyone else?
>
>>Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience
>>of
>>an angry humanoid god.
>
> Science confirms the existence of God.
>
But it does not confirm the existence of an angry God that demands obedience
and sacrifice etc.
That all comes down to agreed upon interpretations, which are highly subject
to false human beliefs.
And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians all
throughout history.
>
>>>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>>> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>>
>>You mean Bible apologists and traditionalists.
>
> No, the bible researchers.
>
Are you sure, or are you going only on what you were told?
You should always look into what people tell you because people tend to
mislead when they want to believe something strongly enough, and
religionists have very strong desires to believe certain things. Be careful
what you buy into. You always have to look at both sides of every story and
then carefully examine your *own* motivations.
Lord Vetinari
news:epCdnVg_t8gf5d_W...@posted.localnet...
>
> "AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
> news:slrnhk4tot.7...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>>>mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
>>>truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>>
>>
>>
>> ( althaiophobia is fear of marshmallows. )
>>
>> It is a combination of the fear of truth, fear of reality, fear of
>> life and living, and hatred of everything and everyone.
>
> Ya know, I've always been suspicious of marshmellows.....
It's "marshmallow". The stuff you're familiar with is a substitution for
the original French recipes, which had the mucilage from the roots of the
Marsh Mallow as an important ingredient.
Father Haskell
> "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:epCdnVg_t8gf5d_W...@posted.localnet...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "AZ Nomad" <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
Heat a mix of sugar, corn syrup, water, gelatin, and
vanilla to soft ball, whip until mix doubles in volume and
turns from clear to opaque, refrigerate. Tastes amazing
in hot cocoa, worth forfeiting your soul for.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Science confirms the existence of God.
Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 6:36�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
> >>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
Then it is evidence carefully concealed from everyone else.
Any evidence so shy of public awareness is at best dubious.
>
> >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
> >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>
> The evidence says that you lack the intelligence God gave the average
> doorknob.
There are lots of doorknobs which look like geniuses compared to Dook
the Puke.
> You show that by your inability to do or say anything but insult others.
When one is oneself being insulted by such as Puke, it is only fair to
return the favor.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:21:27 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 5:36�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
> >>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
> >Funny, then, isn't it, that this "evidence" you always LIE you have,
> >never sees the light of day?
>
> You're just too slow to see that light, dud.
It is the light that failed.
>
> > Funny, then, isn't it, that you say here
> >you have evidence, but in other messages you've outright admitted you
> >have none
>
> You better crank your brain up, dud. I have evidence, no proof, and so the
> evidence drives my faith.
Drives it into insanity, but that alleged evidence does not ever appear,
so cannot not convince anyone to whom it is not presented.
>
> Dud, all I see you trying to do is to use unscientific data to prove
> a scientific point. You can bullshit your fellow atheists, but I'm
> too smart for you.
The data proves your bible contains statements contrary to fact.
And that raises the issue of which other statements in that bible are
contrary to fact. An issue with which you seem quite incapable of
dealing.
>
> >You can keep running, hiding, side-stepping, dancing around, tossing
> >out straw men and making excuses all you want, but the fact remains
> >that you made a statement which you manifestly cannot support.
>
> I have to protect your fellow atheists from you.
On the contrary, her fellow atheists are in no danger at all from her,
it is your faith that is endangered.
>
> >never once have you found the guts to face me and support *your*
> >statement and explain how what we term Genesis 1:32 is pure fiction
> >but the very enxt sentece is pure fact.
>
> See how you show your ass. I never said anything about Gen 1-11 being pure
> fiction. I said it was unscientific. It's also been declared pre-history.
Is being "unscientific" proof that it is not fiction? Unless something
which is unscientific must be simultaneously factual, the issue remains:
if parts of your Bible are not factual, how does one determine which, if
any, parts of it ARE factual?
Failure to deal successfully with this issue makes your whole bible
completely unreliable.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
doubting Thomas?
The Chief Instigator
>>
>>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>>
>>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
>>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>
> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
You've demonstrated many a time in this newsgroup that you're empty between
the ears, Earl. She's billions of lightyears ahead of you.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Abbotsford 4, Houston 3 (OT, January 3)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, January 6 at Texas, 7:35
L.Roberts
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
>
> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>
> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>
> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
> doubting Thomas?
I find people who believe what you believe odd, yet, all too common.
Don Martin
>>If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
>>we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
>>at the moment.
>>
>When I first saw your subject title I thought that maybe poor old
>Dukems had actually kicked the bucket and that I'd have to think of
>something nice to say in memoriam. Now that's really scary !
Do you say something nice when flushing the WC?
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Patrick
news:hi0cqb$jdd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Them too...
Patrick
Heat a mix of sugar, corn syrup, water, gelatin, and
vanilla to soft ball, whip until mix doubles in volume and
turns from clear to opaque, refrigerate. Tastes amazing
in hot cocoa, worth forfeiting your soul for.
PB - Talked me into getting a nice hot cup
Smiler
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>>> <budi...@netscape.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed
>>>> now. It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from
>>>> twin medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>>
>>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
>> Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not
>> evidence.
>
> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>
>>>> These
>>>> mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of
>>>> the truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>>>
>>> I'm scared to death of letting you use unscientific information to
>>> establish a scientific fact.
>
>> Its unlikely that you would know much about scientific facts.
>
> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>
Like the 'fact' that the moon doesn't rotate on it's axis?
Bwahahaha!
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
Zacharias Mulletstein
Syd
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 6:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
> >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>
> The evidence says that you lack the intelligence God gave the average doorknob.
> You show that by your inability to do or say anything but insult others.
>
>
And you show that your projecting in whatever you post.
PDW
Syd
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 5:38 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >snip, but just for bandwidth..
>
> >Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
> >thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>
> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>
>
Your too brain dead for any thinking, Dork.
PDW
Syd
> In article <3at6k517gtkggk1ebmikr36epmtr0g8...@4ax.com>,
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 4, 6:36 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> > >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> > >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> > >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> > >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
> Then it is evidence carefully concealed from everyone else.
> Any evidence so shy of public awareness is at best dubious.
>
>
>
> > >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
> > >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>
> > The evidence says that you lack the intelligence God gave the average
> > doorknob.
>
> There are lots of doorknobs which look like geniuses compared to Dook
> the Puke.
>
> > You show that by your inability to do or say anything but insult others.
>
> When one is oneself being insulted by such as Puke, it is only fair to
> return the favor.
I wish I'd said that... It's way too true.
PDW
Les Hellawell
How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
Are you sure this was not just simply made up in a ridiculous
attempt to explain its obvious total absence?
For a non believer it is an obvious "they would say that would
they not?"
You lot will make up any nonesense in order to preserve your
precious, yet worthless, faith. The doubting Thomas is just
an early example showing how believers, even back then were
having difficulty persuading people of their beliefs and the
extend to which they are prepared to lie about and be
derogatory about people.
Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
to justify belief, after all you are surely not expected people to
accept you beliefs just on your say-so are you'? Nah you must have
more than that to offer.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from: YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County
Budikka666
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
>
> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>
> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>
> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
> doubting Thomas?
I do remember the fictional doubting Thomas in the fictional story of
Jesus. But you seem to have forgotten what Thomas did. He demanded
evidence just as we are doing, and unlike the farcical Duke, the
fictional Jesus didn't run away; he actually supplied the evidence.
Budikka
duke
>On Jan 5, 12:21�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>
>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>> >>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>> >>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>
>> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>> >Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>>
>> God can't be proved,
>
>And yet, you still bother people with it.
All the evidence can't be denied.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>>
>>>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>>
>> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
>the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
Correction - there are no edits.
>> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
>> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
>you're smarter than everyone else?
No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
>>>Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience
>>>of an angry humanoid god.
>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>But it does not confirm the existence of an angry God that demands obedience
>and sacrifice etc. That all comes down to agreed upon interpretations, which are highly subject
>to false human beliefs.
>And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians all
>throughout history.
Name one.
>>>>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>>>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>>>> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>>>You mean Bible apologists and traditionalists.
>> No, the bible researchers.
>Are you sure, or are you going only on what you were told?
>You should always look into what people tell you because people tend to
>mislead when they want to believe something strongly enough, and
>religionists have very strong desires to believe certain things. Be careful
>what you buy into. You always have to look at both sides of every story and
>then carefully examine your *own* motivations.
There are literally thousands of books written by research experts on the
subject and not called "the Bible".
duke
duke
If you atheist wannabes were truthful, you'd accept that overabundance of
evidence that does exist.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 5:36�pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm here laughing at you, you bid dudass.
duke
The moon does rotate on it's axis. Nasa says so.
But a ball on a string doesn't.
duke
>In article <3at6k517gtkggk1eb...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 20:39:22 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 4, 6:36�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>> >>
>> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>>
>> >You wouldn't know real evidence if it slapped you silly, which it
>> >often does, liar pedophile earl.
>>
>> The evidence says that you lack the intelligence God gave the average
>doorknob.
>> You show that by your inability to do or say anything but insult others.
>>
>> The Dukester, American-American
>> *****
>
>� doorknob comparison is not an insult?
It's an insult to the doorknob.
duke
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:31:22 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 4, 5:38?pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>>>
>>>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
>>>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>>
>> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>
>You've demonstrated many a time in this newsgroup that you're empty between
>the ears, Earl. She's billions of lightyears ahead of you.
She's backing up.
�R.L.Measures
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Science confirms the existence of God.
>
> Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
> ...
� Arcane is for damn sure the right word for the RCC's 3 in 1 Jesus-God.
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
What a great story to make excuses for the lack of evidence. Whoever
came up with that whopper should be really proud of how many people he
misled.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It simply begs the same question he cops out of answering. But it
fools nobody, just telling us how intellectually dishonest he is.
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:36:41 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com>,
>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>>
>>>Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
>>>arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>>>
>>>At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
>>>certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>>
>>
>> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
>>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
>>doubting Thomas?
>
>How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
As I said I do not KNOW, I Believe.
Does anyone who does not believe in God have "proof" God does
not exist?
>
>Are you sure this was not just simply made up in a ridiculous
>attempt to explain its obvious total absence?
>
>For a non believer it is an obvious "they would say that would
>they not?"
>
>You lot will make up any nonesense in order to preserve your
>precious, yet worthless, faith.
Since you like proof, could you provide proof God does not
exist? Can you state it in the form of a logicial proof?
> The doubting Thomas is just
>an early example showing how believers, even back then were
>having difficulty persuading people of their beliefs and the
>extend to which they are prepared to lie about and be
>derogatory about people.
>
>Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
>to justify belief, after all you are surely not expected people to
>accept you beliefs just on your say-so are you'? Nah you must have
>more than that to offer.
I don't expect people to accept my beliefs.
John Locke
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:22:08 -0800, John Locke <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
>>>we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
>>>at the moment.
>>>
>>When I first saw your subject title I thought that maybe poor old
>>Dukems had actually kicked the bucket and that I'd have to think of
>>something nice to say in memoriam. Now that's really scary !
>
>Do you say something nice when flushing the WC?
>
...on occasion, in freezing weather, I have been known to praise the
great Toilet God in the sky for providing me with indoor plumbing
and a working septic system.
Les Hellawell
Tell me Duke, why is this supposed evidence never presented alongside
the claim?
Here you parrot out your ususual party piece about it being
overabundant yet do not present any.
Fine, don't bother, that's not a problem for me. I can keep
not believing your claim on the grounds that the claim has not
ben supported by evidence.
Les Hellawell
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell
><l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:36:41 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com>,
>>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>>>
>>>>Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
>>>>arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>>>>
>>>>At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
>>>>certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
>>>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
>>>doubting Thomas?
>>
>>How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
>
> As I said I do not KNOW, I Believe.
You stated the above as a fact. ("God taught us..") hence my question.
If it just mere belief then fine say so, do not present it is a fact,
which is a lie.
> Does anyone who does not believe in God have "proof" God does
>not exist?
No idea, never asked.
>>Are you sure this was not just simply made up in a ridiculous
>>attempt to explain its obvious total absence?
>>
>>For a non believer it is an obvious "they would say that would
>>they not?"
>>
>>You lot will make up any nonesense in order to preserve your
>>precious, yet worthless, faith.
>
> Since you like proof,
I do?
> could you provide proof God does not
>exist? Can you state it in the form of a logicial proof?
Nope. Can you?
>> The doubting Thomas is just
>>an early example showing how believers, even back then were
>>having difficulty persuading people of their beliefs and the
>>extend to which they are prepared to lie about and be
>>derogatory about people.
>>
>>Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
>>to justify belief, after all you are surely not expected people to
>>accept you beliefs just on your say-so are you'? Nah you must have
>>more than that to offer.
>
> I don't expect people to accept my beliefs.
Fine no problem. Just do not present them as fact in future.
Christopher A. Lee
<l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:03:09 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell
>><l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:36:41 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>>>>
>>>>>Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
>>>>>arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>>>>>
>>>>>At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
>>>>>certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
But when theists make claims in the real world, they become subject to
real world too, methods, evidence etc.
>>>> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
>>>>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
>>>>doubting Thomas?
>>>
>>>How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
>>
>> As I said I do not KNOW, I Believe.
>
>You stated the above as a fact. ("God taught us..") hence my question.
>
>If it just mere belief then fine say so, do not present it is a fact,
>which is a lie.
>
>> Does anyone who does not believe in God have "proof" God does
>>not exist?
>
>No idea, never asked.
It's not our problem - it's merely somebody else's religious belief
that they haven't the sense to keep inside their religion
>>>Are you sure this was not just simply made up in a ridiculous
>>>attempt to explain its obvious total absence?
>>>
>>>For a non believer it is an obvious "they would say that would
>>>they not?"
>>>
>>>You lot will make up any nonesense in order to preserve your
>>>precious, yet worthless, faith.
>>
>> Since you like proof,
>
>I do?
Like most theists he can't understand that we only demand it to get
them to shut up about it when they can't put up.
>> could you provide proof God does not
>>exist? Can you state it in the form of a logicial proof?
>
>Nope. Can you?
>
>>> The doubting Thomas is just
>>>an early example showing how believers, even back then were
>>>having difficulty persuading people of their beliefs and the
>>>extend to which they are prepared to lie about and be
>>>derogatory about people.
>>>
>>>Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
>>>to justify belief, after all you are surely not expected people to
>>>accept you beliefs just on your say-so are you'? Nah you must have
>>>more than that to offer.
It's a standard theist dishonesty. We ask them to back it up and they
demand proof for everyday things that aren't even in dispute that
would convince a solipsist.
I don't think it even fools themselves, it's just their next move in
the game. They have to say something, anything, to shut us up until
the next demand.
>> I don't expect people to accept my beliefs.
>
>Fine no problem. Just do not present them as fact in future.
Don't hold your breath waiting.
duke
It has been. But tell me, why is it that atheist proclaim to the sky that there
is no God, and run away like hell when asked for support? If they merely said
they don't believe, that would be another thing, and specifically it would make
them agnostics.
>Here you parrot out your ususual party piece about it being
>overabundant yet do not present any.
>Fine, don't bother, that's not a problem for me. I can keep
>not believing your claim on the grounds that the claim has not
>ben supported by evidence.
Can you support your own beliefs?
Les Hellawell
No idea, why not ask them that make the claim?
Maybe its for the same reason you run away when asked to prove
there is only one god as you claim?
> If they merely said
>they don't believe, that would be another thing, and specifically it would make
>them agnostics.
I just do not believe, no reason to.
>>Here you parrot out your ususual party piece about it being
>>overabundant yet do not present any.
>
>>Fine, don't bother, that's not a problem for me. I can keep
>>not believing your claim on the grounds that the claim has not
>>ben supported by evidence.
>
>Can you support your own beliefs?
Yes, I can support all my religious beliefs.
Next time I state one I will provide the evidence to support
it something you have never been known to do with yours.
Budikka666
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:26:35 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 5, 12:21 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
> >> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>
> >> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >> >Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>
> >> God can't be proved,
>
> >And yet, you still bother people with it.
>
> All the evidence can't be denied.
Since you have ZERO evidence, *you* can be denied, moron. LoL! How
many times is your 100% impotence going to kick you in your dumb ass?
I'm guessing the answer to that is "repeatedly" since you're quite
obviously too stupid to grasp it.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
>
>
> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
> >>>"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>
> >>>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>
> >> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
> >Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
> >the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
>
> Correction - there are no edits.
>
> >> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
> >> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
> >You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
> >you're smarter than everyone else?
>
> No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
Name these experts, otherwise the only *intelligent* conclusion is
that you're a LYING piece of trash, as usual. Got it now dumb-ass?
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
Not one iota of which you can provide. If you provide none in
resposne to this message, then the only *intelligent* conclusion you
obviously wish us to draw is that you're a LYING piece of trash. Got
it now, Dumb Ass?
Bu8dikka
Budikka666
> On 06 Jan 2010 00:01:19 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:31:22 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Jan 4, 5:38?pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>
> >>>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
> >>>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>
> >> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>
> >You've demonstrated many a time in this newsgroup that you're empty between
> >the ears, Earl. She's billions of lightyears ahead of you.
>
> She's backing up.
I'm right here in your idiotic, slack-jawed drooling face, Moron. I'm
calling you out. I'm saying, "Where's your objective evidence" and
what will you do?
That's one of the hallmarks of solid science - to be able to
extrapolate from existing evidence and make confident and accurate
predictions about what to expect. Here's my prediction about what you
will do: You'll RUN AWAY *FROM* *THIS* *CHALLENGE* to provide
objective evidence, you'll side step the challenge, you'll avoid the
challenge, you'll ignore the challenge, you'll snip the challenge to
fool yourself that it doesn't exist, you'll hide from the challenge
behind smoke-screens and straw men, you'll deny the challenge, you'll
make excuse after excuse after excuse.
Here's what you won't do: Meet the challenge by providing objective
evidence to support your dumb, cowardly hypocritical ass.
Let's see who's right shall we? Let's see if I'm backing away or if
you're RUNNING like the chickenshit you are, like you've been
routinely doing for the last half a decade.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:12:31 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
Since you don't have the first clue what's the difference between an
atheist and an agnostic, you're the moron. Thanks for establishing
that officially, but we already knew.
> >Here you parrot out your ususual party piece about it being
> >overabundant yet do not present any.
> >Fine, don't bother, that's not a problem for me. I can keep
> >not believing your claim on the grounds that the claim has not
> >ben supported by evidence.
>
> Can you support your own beliefs?
My belief - along with most other atheists here I'd hazard a guess -
is that there's no objective or scientific evidence and no intelligent
rationale for believing in any god, and **YOU** and your ilk have been
supporting that position for half a decade by RUNNING from providing
such evidence or rationale every single time anyone asks you to do so.
That clear enough for you ass-wipe?
Your failure to supply such evidence in direct response to this
message will officially mark your unconditional agreement to and
acceptance of this position.
Budikka
Don Martin
But the parallel to saying something nice about a dead doosh is bidding the
turds farewell.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Zacharias Mulletstein
Father Haskell
> "Father Haskell" <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Heat a mix of sugar, corn syrup, water, gelatin, and
> vanilla to soft ball, whip until mix doubles in volume and
> turns from clear to opaque, refrigerate. Tastes amazing
> in hot cocoa, worth forfeiting your soul for.
>
> PB - Talked me into getting a nice hot cup
You sold your soul cheap.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:26:35 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 12:21�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >>
> >> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> >> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> >> >>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> >> >>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
> >>
> >> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
> >> >Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
> >>
> >> God can't be proved,
> >
> >And yet, you still bother people with it.
>
> All the evidence can't be denied.
Since Duke the puke has, as yet, produced no such evidence, there is
nothing to deny.
Note that Duke the puke says in two consecutive of his statements
"God can't be proved"
and
"All the evidence can't be denied".
If god can't be proved, then there can't bet any evidence.
\At lest in a logical world.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> I pay attention to the experts.
Your notion of experts falls well short of everyone else's.
>
> >>>Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience
> >>>of an angry humanoid god.
>
> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
Not any version of science that I am aware of. Science may say that it
has no way to test the existence of a god if the definition of the god
is sufficiently ambiguous, but is quite able to disprove the existence
of some definitions of gods.
>
> >And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians all
> >throughout history.
>
> Name one.
Savoranola?
For RC's, Luther.
All those executed by order of the Inquisition were claimed to be bad by
that INquisition.
Hosts of alleged heretics.
The RC's even accused many of their own saints of heresy before
beatifying them.
Christian history is a long tale of getting things wrong.
And Duke seems to b e recapitulating each and every one of those miriad
mistakes once again.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:06:36 -0800 (PST), "L.Roberts" <ozzca...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 3:36�pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33rh5o3e16pc54uh...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
> >>
> >> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> >> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
> >>
> >> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
> >> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
> >>
> >> � � �I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. �God
> >> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. �Remember
> >> doubting Thomas?
> >
> >I find people who believe what you believe odd, yet, all too common.
>
> And intelligent too.
Perhaps by Duke's low standards, but not by comparison to such as T. E.
Huxley or Bertrand Lord Russell.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:36:41 -0500, sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com>,
> >>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
> >>>
> >>>Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> >>>arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
> >>>
> >>>At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
> >>>certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
> >>
> >>
> >> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
> >>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
> >>doubting Thomas?
>
> >How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
>
> >Are you sure this was not just simply made up in a ridiculous
> >attempt to explain its obvious total absence?
>
> >For a non believer it is an obvious "they would say that would
> >they not?"
>
> >You lot will make up any nonesense in order to preserve your
> >precious, yet worthless, faith. The doubting Thomas is just
> >an early example showing how believers, even back then were
> >having difficulty persuading people of their beliefs and the
> >extend to which they are prepared to lie about and be
> >derogatory about people.
>
> >Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
> >to justify belief, after all you are surely not expected people to
> >accept you beliefs just on your say-so are you'? Nah you must have
> >more than that to offer.
>
> If you atheist wannabes were truthful, you'd accept that overabundance of
> evidence that does exist.
If it were indeed so overabundant, surely Duke could spare us a glance
at some of it, but he never does.
And after a while, one can deduce from such a uniformly continuing
absence of evidence, evidence of its absence.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:51:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 5:36�pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> � � �I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. �God
> >> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. �Remember
> >> doubting Thomas?
> >
> >I do remember the fictional doubting Thomas in the fictional story of
> >Jesus. But you seem to have forgotten what Thomas did. He demanded
> >evidence just as we are doing, and unlike the farcical Duke, the
> >fictional Jesus didn't run away; he actually supplied the evidence.
>
> I'm here laughing at you, you bid dudass.
Such hysterical laughter is the only way Duke can keep from crying.
Jimbo
> In article <f249k5tiopmas109mogs863ft7hsvba...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
Because he doesn't have it. earl is a known liar.
Andrew W
news:rq39k5lf8t2n8ctar...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>
>>> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>
>>Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
>>the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
>
> Correction - there are no edits.
>
None that you know of.
>
>>> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
>>> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>
>>You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
>>you're smarter than everyone else?
>
> No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
>
Priests?
>
>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>
>>But it does not confirm the existence of an angry God that demands
>>obedience
>>and sacrifice etc. That all comes down to agreed upon interpretations,
>>which are highly subject
>>to false human beliefs.
>>And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians
>>all
>>throughout history.
>
> Name one.
>
I already have and you couldn't accept it.
>
>>Are you sure, or are you going only on what you were told?
>>You should always look into what people tell you because people tend to
>>mislead when they want to believe something strongly enough, and
>>religionists have very strong desires to believe certain things. Be
>>careful
>>what you buy into. You always have to look at both sides of every story
>>and
>>then carefully examine your *own* motivations.
>
> There are literally thousands of books written by research experts on the
> subject and not called "the Bible".
>
Apologists are not research experts.
L.Roberts
> I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
> It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
> mean, respectively (but not respectfully) that he's terrified of the
> truth, and he's scared to death of reality.
>
> In honor of Dookie, I'm afraid I can never support this assertion with
> any reference (or reverence) or any kind of objective or scientific
> evidence, so you'll have to take it on faith, which of course, in
> Dookie Whirled™ establishes it as an incontrovertible fact.
>
> Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
> "Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory", but despite repeated requests that he
> support his claim, all he can do is say that he "didn't say it,
> experts did" and then of course when we ask him to support *that*, he
> develops yet another condition, drapeteuonta podea (running feet)! As
> Dookie himself has said, Mass Lying is the perfect form of cowardice.
>
> His illness is so pervasive that it doesn't do to try logic on him
> because he also suffers from rationalitis. By that I mean, if you
> point out that if (as Dookie insists, bless him) Abram was real, and
> the very last verse of chapter 11 of Genesis (which claims that
> Abram's father was Terah), cannot be prehisotry because Terah also has
> to be real.
>
> The reason Dookie can't allow Terah to be real, even though it's pure
> insanity to insist upon the one and deny the other, is that if he
> does, his whole façade of lies comes tumbling down, and Dookie cannot
> let that happen because it would be the end of Dookie Whirled™.
>
> And there you have it. So as you go about your rational lives in full
> enjoyment thereof, please spare a thought for those less fortunate
> (like sufferers of nanocephalia, such as Dooklie).
>
> You can reach him at the hospice of St Lillies-in-the-Field, but under
> no circumstances send money. Dookie has no need of it since his god
> has undertaken to provide everything for him, even though he doesn't
> supply everything to the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, the
> liberals, no matter how hard they pray for relief.
>
> If you feel you have to send something, please send flour. That way
> we can finish baking him because he's quite obviously only half-baked
> at the moment.
>
I just knew when I saw your title, that, though one might think you
were posting his obituary, there wouldn't be anything sad about that.
After all, isn't he destined, at least according to what he'd have us
believe, to go spend eternity playing lap dog to his master? One would
think he'd want to get on with, wouldn't one?
L.Roberts
Atheist
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 11:30�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 03:21:27 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jan 4, 5:36�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>> >> >It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>> >> >medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>
>> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>> >Funny, then, isn't it, that this "evidence" you always LIE you have,
>> >never sees the light of day?
>>
>> You're just too slow to see that light, dud.
>Once again when you could present evidence if you actually had any,
>YOU RUN AWAY. Thanks for proving repeatedly that you LIE when you
>claim to have evidence.
Presented dozens of times in the past, many to you.
>> >never once have you found the guts to face me and support *your*
>> >statement and explain how what we term Genesis 1:32 is pure fiction
>> >but the very next sentence is pure fact.
>> See how you show your ass. �I never said anything about Gen 1-11 being pure
>> fiction. � I said it was unscientific.
>So dinosaurs are unscientific because they're prehistoric? LoL! You
>really are the dumbest cluck in the henhouse, aren't you? Why you
>insist on proving it to us on a daily basis is the real mystery here.
I know what a fossil record is.
>> �It's also been declared pre-history.
>Sez you, but of course every time you've been requested to support
>this statement you've RUN AWAY proving it to be a LIE! LoL!
Says a dud that used plagiarized data in a mad attempt to show no global flood.
>Every time you've been requested to support this thoroughly fictional
>division between Genesis 1:32 and Genesis 12 you've RUN AWAY proving
>*that* to be a LIE as well! LoL!
>So once again I've proven two things:
>1. You're LYING when you keep claiming you want a discussion, because
>*every* *single* *time* I open a discussion
In your vain attempt to use unscientific data to prove a scientific event.
>2. You're the most worthless human being on Usenet. You're a coward,
>you're a liar, you're a hypocrite, you're not even close to being a
>Christian which you also LIE about, and you cannot support a *single*
>*claim* *you* *make*.
I rest my case.
>Thanks for helping me prove this in 2010 just as you helped me prove
>it repeatedly in 2009.
>I'm done with you until the next time I get bored and kick your dumb
>ass. I'll add this thread to the list of ones in which you've RUN
>AWAY from supporting your claims, Pig Gumbo.
Are you going back to refine your plagiarism, dud?
duke
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>>
>>>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>>
>> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>>
>
>Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
>the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
No edits. But here's your chance to show that there were.
>> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
>> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
>you're smarter than everyone else?
I'm smarter than dummy dudass.
>>>Religion does not deal with science. It deals with worship and obedience
>>>of an angry humanoid god.
>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>But it does not confirm the existence of an angry God that demands obedience
>and sacrifice etc.
God is NOT angry. God is all love.
>That all comes down to agreed upon interpretations, which are highly subject
>to false human beliefs.
Like your??
>And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians all
>throughout history.
Actually that all ended with Jesus Christ.
>>>>>Let me show you an example. Dookie has been stating repeatedly that
>>>>>"Genesis 1 - 11 is prehistory",
>>>> Uhhhh, no. The bible researchers have established that fact.
>>>You mean Bible apologists and traditionalists.
>> No, the bible researchers.
>Are you sure, or are you going only on what you were told?
Or you?
>You should always look into what people tell you because people tend to
>mislead when they want to believe something strongly enough, and
>religionists have very strong desires to believe certain things. Be careful
>what you buy into. You always have to look at both sides of every story and
>then carefully examine your *own* motivations.
That's exactly the reason I don't listen to you.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 3:36�pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> >In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33rh5o3e16pc54uh...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>
>> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
>> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>>
>> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
>> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>>
>> � � �I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. �God
>> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. �Remember
>> doubting Thomas?
>
>I find people who believe what you believe odd, yet, all too common.
What's really odd is they way people like you volunteer for an eternity in hell.
duke
>> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
>>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
>>doubting Thomas?
>How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
Because we see people like you that oppose God.
>Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
>to justify belief,
No, you consistently demand proof.
The evidence is the big bang - creation at it's finest.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 5:36�pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> >In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33rh5o3e16pc54uh...@4ax.com>,
>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>
>> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
>> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>>
>> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
>> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>>
>> � � �I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. �God
>> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. �Remember
>> doubting Thomas?
>
>I do remember the fictional doubting Thomas in the fictional story of
>Jesus. But you seem to have forgotten what Thomas did. He demanded
>evidence just as we are doing, and unlike the farcical Duke, the
>fictional Jesus didn't run away; he actually supplied the evidence.
Evidence you've been given over and over. Imagine someone so silly as to try to
use unscientific information to proves a scientific point.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 7:34�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 06 Jan 2010 00:01:19 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:31:22 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 23:26:15 -0800 (PST), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Jan 4, 5:38?pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>snip, but just for bandwidth..
>>
>> >>>Budikka, don't tease me like that. When I first saw your topic, I
>> >>>thought you'd discovered that the moron was dead.
>>
>> >> She's too brain dead to see her fellow atheist thinking.
>>
>> >You've demonstrated many a time in this newsgroup that you're empty between
>> >the ears, Earl. �She's billions of lightyears ahead of you.
>>
>> She's backing up.
>
>I'm right here in your idiotic, slack-jawed drooling face, Moron. I'm
>calling you out. I'm saying, "Where's your objective evidence" and
>what will you do?
Tell you about the creation of the universe and all in it. Something from
nothing into nothingness. Creation at it's finest. We call the Supreme Creator
by his name - God.
Objective, meaningful, scientific - it's everything, dud.
>Let's see who's right shall we? Let's see if I'm backing away or if
>you're RUNNING like the chickenshit you are, like you've been
>routinely doing for the last half a decade.
You're backing up, dud.
Jimbo
wrote:
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rq39k5lf8t2n8ctar...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +1100, "Andrew W"
>
> >>"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>
> >>Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
> >>the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
>
> > Correction - there are no edits.
>
> None that you know of.
>
>
>
> >>> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
> >>> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>
> >>You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
> >>you're smarter than everyone else?
>
> > No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
>
> Priests?
>
If we ever need experts in the field of molesting children, we'll call
a priest. Otherwise, a priest is not an expert.
duke
wrote:
>> It has been. �But tell me, why is it that atheist proclaim to the sky that there
>> is no God, and run away like hell when asked for support? �If they merely said
>> they don't believe, that would be another thing, and specifically it would make
>> them agnostics.
>Since you don't have the first clue what's the difference between an
>atheist and an agnostic, you're the moron. Thanks for establishing
>that officially, but we already knew.
Sure I do. And atheist denies/rejects the existence of God with no support at
all. And agnostic does not find all the evidence convincing, but leaves his
options open.
>> >Here you parrot out your ususual party piece about it being
>> >overabundant yet do not present any.
>> >Fine, don't bother, that's not a problem for me. I can keep
>> >not believing �your claim on the grounds that the claim has not
>> >ben supported by evidence.
>> Can you support your own beliefs?
>My belief - along with most other atheists here I'd hazard a guess -
>is that there's no objective or scientific evidence and no intelligent
>rationale for believing in any god
Oh, but there is. And you deny the evidence and the reality.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 02:51:45 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 5, 5:36 pm, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:51:15 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> >> >In article <s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33rh5o3e16pc54uh...@4ax.com>,
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Science confirms the existence of God.
>
> >> >Science does not confirm the existence of any god at all, much less the
> >> >arcane version posited by the RC dictatorship.
>
> >> >At best, science is neutral on the existence of any gods, and is
> >> >certainly not pro any god in particular nor gods in general.
>
> >> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
> >> taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
> >> doubting Thomas?
>
> >I do remember the fictional doubting Thomas in the fictional story of
> >Jesus. But you seem to have forgotten what Thomas did. He demanded
> >evidence just as we are doing, and unlike the farcical Duke, the
> >fictional Jesus didn't run away; he actually supplied the evidence.
>
> Evidence you've been given over and over.
No liar pedophile earl, yo have given no evidence.
duke
wrote:
>Not one iota of which you can provide. If you provide none in
>resposne to this message, then the only *intelligent* conclusion you
>obviously wish us to draw is that you're a LYING piece of trash. Got
>it now, Dumb Ass?
I kick your ass on this one, dud.
Jimbo
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:47:36 +0000, Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> >> I find it odd that so many people want to "prove" God. God
> >>taught us that it is better to believe in God than to know. Remember
> >>doubting Thomas?
> >How do you know this god thing you claim taught you that and why?
>
> Because we see people like you that oppose God.
>
> >Actuall this atheist does not demand 'proof' just sufficient evidence
> >to justify belief,
>
> No, you consistently demand proof.
>
> The evidence is the big bang - creation at it's finest.
>
Prove it, liar pedophile duke.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 7:25�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:26:35 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 5, 12:21�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>
>> >> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:38:23 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> >> >> <budik...@netscape.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>I know we love to kick him around, but I fear that's all changed now.
>> >> >>>It's been professionally established that Duke suffers from twin
>> >> >>>medical conditions called alithiophobia and pragmatikophobia.
>>
>> >> >> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>> >> >Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>>
>> >> God can't be proved,
>>
>> >And yet, you still bother people with it.
>>
>> All the evidence can't be denied.
>
>Since you have ZERO evidence, *you* can be denied, moron. LoL! How
>many times is your 100% impotence going to kick you in your dumb ass?
>I'm guessing the answer to that is "repeatedly" since you're quite
>obviously too stupid to grasp it.
I have 100% of the evidence for my beliefs. You have 0% to support your
beliefs.
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 6, 7:29�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>
>>
>>
>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> >> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >>>"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:5du4k513s8dvhbvpo...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >>>> My opinion is always based on evidence.
>>
>> >>>Religions are all about beliefs, faith and interpretations, not evidence.
>>
>> >> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>> >Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
>> >the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
>>
>> Correction - there are no edits.
>>
>> >> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
>> >> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>> >You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. �Does that mean you think
>> >you're smarter than everyone else?
>>
>> No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
>Name these experts, otherwise the only *intelligent* conclusion is
>that you're a LYING piece of trash, as usual. Got it now dumb-ass?
>Budikka
Biblical researchers that write books, dud.
duke
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:rq39k5lf8t2n8ctar...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:16:53 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:s4t6k5hsieu8gbc33...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:09:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> God can't be proved, but the evidence drives humanity to worship him.
>>
>>>Correction: Human interpretations and understandings, plus human edits in
>>>the scriptures drove humanity to worship.
>>
>> Correction - there are no edits.
>>
>
>None that you know of.
My Catholic Study Bible says the same thing as your KJV.
>>>> But, unlike bud the dummy dudass, I know better than to try to use
>>>> unscientific data to establish a scientific fact.
>>
>>>You call everyone who disagrees with you dumb. Does that mean you think
>>>you're smarter than everyone else?
>>
>> No, unlike dumb dudass, I pay attention to the experts.
>Priests?
In some cases, yes. They have spend years in study on the matter under
discussion. And they have been taught by others with more experience.
>>>> Science confirms the existence of God.
>>>But it does not confirm the existence of an angry God that demands
>>>obedience
>>>and sacrifice etc. That all comes down to agreed upon interpretations,
>>>which are highly subject
>>>to false human beliefs.
>>>And we have much proof for bad interpretations being made by Christians
>>>all throughout history.
>> Name one.
>I already have and you couldn't accept it.
I await your answer.
>>>Are you sure, or are you going only on what you were told?
>>>You should always look into what people tell you because people tend to
>>>mislead when they want to believe something strongly enough, and
>>>religionists have very strong desires to believe certain things. Be
>>>careful
>>>what you buy into. You always have to look at both sides of every story
>>>and
>>>then carefully examine your *own* motivations.
>>
>> There are literally thousands of books written by research experts on the
>> subject and not called "the Bible".
>Apologists are not research experts.
Research experts are research experts.
duke
wrote:
>I just knew when I saw your title, that, though one might think you
>were posting his obituary, there wouldn't be anything sad about that.
All my loved ones and my many, many acquaintances and friends would be sad.
And remember, I never lie on the ng.