Why Do Believers Insist That Their God Is Substandard?
Budikka666
amazing ones to me are these:
A. God isn't perfect.
B. God cannot judge.
C. God is impotent (not omnipotent).
D. Heaven is Hell.
Let's look at these insistences:
Why there is no god - Parts 171 - 174
171. Perfection.
Believers are always asserting that their god is perfect, yet the proof
that he is not, indeed cannot be, is rife.
The first problem with this in the Bible is in the beginning: the
creation itself. Believers insist that a perfect god made us and saw
that it was good, but this is a lie! The Bible tells us so!
If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later? In fact, he was so
sorry he ever made Earth and its inhabitants that he flushed it down
the toilet - literally (and the Muslims are fussing because they think
someone flushed a Koran down the toilet? How is that worse than
someone flushing an entire planet down the toilet?).
This god could have done anything at that point - at the point where he
realizes he screwed up badly. He could have remade Earth. He could
have adjusted it, got it back on track, or simply magicked it
painlessly into oblivion and started over, but he flushed it (this is
one reason why he's impotent, BTW).
So we know that god isn't perfect. No perfect being could ever make
such a mistake. But even prior to this we can see that god couldn't
possibly be perfect.
Perfection is an end-state. It's the climax. It's a mutual orgasm.
At that point, no further improvement can be made. No change is
needed. In fact, change would be an indication of lack of perfection,
otherwise why change?
So no supernaturally perfect being could ever have begun to create
anything! The act of creation requires a change - even if it is only a
change in state of mind, from sitting on your ass to deciding to get up
and do something. For a god to decide to create, or even make the
first motion in the act of creation necessitates a change. And a
change means that the being cannot have been in a perfect state
beforehand.
So believers insist that god isn't perfect, and the Bible confirms it.
Either that or there is no god.
172. Judgment
The reason I know that theists think that their god cannot judge is
that they are always doing it for him. Clearly if he could do it
himself, they would be happy to put their faith in his judgment and
leave it to him, but they do not. They cannot!
We see it on Usenet every single day - there is always some believer
(and usually more than one) running around telling us atheists that
we're going to be sorry. That god will punish us for eternity for our
disbelief. They're blasphemously assuming the mind of god - of knowing
good and evil and of judging us, judging what this god of theirs will
do, and judging that punishment is coming our way.
This judgment goes beyond Usenet and the idiot believers we have here.
This ability to judge is assumed by believers everywhere, and goes up
to the highest levels of government in most every society.
Most every society believes in god, even if it isn't official state
policy. There are some countries, like Iran, that are governed by this
addiction to some god. These countries live under the yoke of Islam,
which emans "submission", yet not a one of them actually does submit to
any god.
These nations certainly do not leave judgment and punishment to this
god. They do not trust this god. They have no faith in this god's
ability to judge, to carry out judgment, and to protect his followers.
Instead, they take it into their own hands.
Western societies are no better. We have, for example, George Bush
professing his faith in god like no US president has for years (he
needs the votes like no US president has in years). Yet even George
Bush believes he knows better than this god when it comes to judgment
and he shares this belief with pretty much every member of congress and
the senate!
None of them will trust their god. Not one of them has any faith in
their god's ability to mete out justice. That's why we have laws and
law enforcement agencies and the most powerful military in history:
because not one person in this nation has any real faith in this god
(fortunately for those of us not fond of anarchy).
Of course, it could be that there is no god, and this is why no one has
any real faith in him.
173. One thing we hear frequently in a.a. is people telling us how
desperately god is trying to reach us. But what they are actually
admitting to is this god's impotence.
They're saying that no matter how desperately their god is trying to
reach us, trying to open our hearts, trying to extend his hand, trying
to open the door, trying to come into our lives, he's totally impotent
(which is why he needs these evangelical losers to preach to us on
Usenet).
On the other hand, Satan is all-powerful when it comes to reaching us.
This satan character is stronger than this god. Satan can reach us
anywhere, any time, any how, and get his message through. Why is this?
Why is it that Satan can get through to us as easily as we can call up
a friend with speed dial, but the most mighty being of all, the
Almighty God, cannot? Clearly because god isn't almighty at all. He's
useless. He's so useless that he needs us pathetic humans to do his
job for him or it wouldn't get done at all.
But it wasn't always so! If you recall the OT Bible stories, this god
was jawing with humans all the time. He walked with humans, he spoke
with humans directly, he sent angels in bodily form to covney messages
to humans. He even personally wrestled with the occasional human.
Satan was nowhere to be found in the OT (until the farcical story of
Job, where god has a bet with Satan at Job's expense).
Why is that? Why is it that Satan is (to hear the Bible thumpers) so
strong and god is so patheticlaly weak that he needs idiot humans to
help him out? Is it because there is no god?
4. Heaven! How often are we regaled with the joys of Heaven here in
a.a.? Eternity int he bliss of this god of theirs.
But do these idiots really have the first inkling of what they're
actually saying? No! First of all they have no idea how long eternity
actually is. Secondly, they have no idea of what it would be like to
suffer it.
Imagine your favorite food or drink, or even your favorite pastime.
Think about it. Immerse yourself in it. Wallow in it. Let's pick
choclate for an example (with apologies to those allergic to it).
Imagine being given leave to indulge yourself in it (and only in it)
for as long as you want.
That first bar of chocolate would be amazing, especially if you hadn't
had chocolate in a long time and it was a small bar and you were
feeling particularly peckish. But would you want to roll right into a
second bar, and if you did would it be as wobnderful? What about the
fifth bar? You've had nothing to drink and no other food, becuase you
elected to spend eternity with chocolate. Now is it so good?
What about the fiftieth bar, one after another? The 5 millionth bar?
The trillionth bar? Would you relish that trillionth bar like you did
the first one?
What if you had chosen basketball, or a video game, or a favorite piece
of music? The first hour might be terrific, the second might be good.
the third? Okay. Teh fourth? Well it;s getting tiresome now. The
tenth hour? The first eyar? The miilionth year? Thge billionth year?
Now let's add reality to the mix (religious "reality" that is). So
this is not a bar of choclate, or a video or ball game, or music or a
movie. It's god. This is the god that makes Wayne Gacy look like
Ronald Mcdonald. (Oh...he *did* look like Ronald McDonald. My bad!).
This is the god who flushed the planet because he himself made a
serious mistake. He didn't painlessly dematerialize the bad and
preserve the good, he drowned children and babies and animals.
This is the god who told Biblical personalities to sacrifice their
sons.
This is the god who set bears on children for making fun of a bald man.
This is the god who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. he didn;t
dematerialize people painelssly, insteadm, he sent buirnign fire and
sulfur down into cities where there were children and abbies.
societopia.net
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1118517008.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
...
> If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
> made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later?
Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator? Where
does the authority to substantiate that right come from? Even if we forgo
the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
creature cannot help even himself?
Rather, it all started by a question from a cunning tester that put the
doubts into the creature's mind to question his creator.
["Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the Garden'?"]
Genesis 3:1
Subsequent to that question, man made every attempt to achieve his will,
whether with or without God.
The authority to question a creator's design must be driven from a capacity
to create. Since man does not have the latter he ought not to assume the
former.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
Witziges Rätsel
is baloney no matter how you slice it.
Budikka666
message, without asking for confirmation, upon the apparent accidental
tapping of some sort of shortcut key, wouldn't it? Anyway, here's the
complete opening message:
B. God cannot judge.
D. Heaven is Hell.
171. Perfection.
172. Judgment
which means "submission", yet not a one of them actually does submit to
any god.
with humans directly, he sent angels in bodily form to convey messages
to humans. He even personally wrestled with the occasional human.
Satan was nowhere to be found in the OT (until the farcical story of
Job, where god has a bet with Satan at Job's expense).
Why is that? Why is it that Satan is (to hear the Bible thumpers) so
strong and god is so pathetically weak that he needs idiot humans to
help him out? Is it because there is no god?
174. Heaven! How often are we regaled with the joys of Heaven here in
a.a.? Eternity in the bliss of this god of theirs.
But do these idiots really have the first inkling of what they're
actually saying? No! First of all they have no idea how long eternity
actually is. Secondly, they have no idea of what it would be like to
suffer it.
Imagine your favorite food or drink, or even your favorite pastime.
Think about it. Immerse yourself in it. Wallow in it. Let's pick
chocolate for an example (with apologies to those allergic to it).
Imagine being given leave to indulge yourself in it (and only in it)
for as long as you want.
That first bar of chocolate would be amazing, especially if you hadn't
had chocolate in a long time and it was a small bar and you were
feeling particularly peckish. But would you want to roll right into a
second bar, and if you did would it be as wonderful? What about the
fifth bar? You've had nothing to drink and no other food, because you
elected to spend eternity with chocolate. Now is it so good?
What about the fiftieth bar, one after another? The 5 millionth bar?
The trillionth bar? Would you relish that trillionth bar like you did
the first one?
What if you had chosen basketball, or a video game, or a favorite piece
of music? The first hour might be terrific, the second might be good.
The third? Okay. The fourth? Well it's getting tiresome now. The
tenth hour? The tenth year? The millionth year? The billionth year?
Now let's add reality to the mix (religious "reality" that is). So
this is not a bar of chocolate, or a video or ball game, or music or a
movie. It's god. This is the god that makes Wayne Gacy look like
Ronald McDonald. (Oh...he *did* look like Ronald McDonald. My bad!).
This is the god who flushed the planet because he himself made a
serious mistake. He didn't painlessly dematerialize the bad and
preserve the good, he drowned children and babies and animals.
This is the god who told Biblical personalities to sacrifice their
sons.
This is the god who set bears on children for making fun of a bald man.
This is the god who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn't
dematerialize people painlessly, instead, he sent fire and burning
sulfur down into cities where there were children and babies.
Spending eternity with this god couldn't possibly, even in your most
whacko bizarre fantasies be Heaven. It would be Hell. Time to given
Heaven the Heave.
Or perhaps there is no such god and no Heaven to go with that
nightmare.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1118517008.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> > If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
> > made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later?
>
> Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
Once again, for the congenitally stupid, this is about evidence for a
god. In order to argue your case, you need to establish that there is
a god and that you know this god's mind like your own. I don't see you
doing that.
Secondly, I'm not arguing against a creator in that sentence. overall,
I'm arguing that believers insist that their creator was not perfect,
and the Bible confirms this. Can you follow this so far?
Thirdly, unlike you people inventing your god, I'm not inventing this.
**THE BIBLE ITSELF SAYS THAT THIS GOD WAS SORRY HE MADE US**. Or don't
you know your own Bible? That's why he destroyed us. Please try to
keep up.
So using the Bible's own words, this god cannot be perfect. Are you
getting this? If the Bible is your god's word, then your god is
admitting that he isn't perfect, so I'm not arguing anything the
creator hasn't argued to begin with.
> Where does the authority to substantiate that right come from?
What authority? Why does anyone need authority to point out how stupid
believers are? How errant the Bible is?
[rest of your bullshit deleted]
Budikka
Barry Trotter
Is Substandard?" in alt.atheism, "societopia.net"
<socie...@societopia.net> catapaulted the following boulder:
>The authority to question a creator's design must be driven from a capacity
>to create. Since man does not have the latter he ought not to assume the
>former.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
Budikka666
assuming I want to hide everything I'm posting:
B. God cannot judge.
D. Heaven is Hell.
171. Perfection.
172. Judgment
which means "submission", yet not a one of them actually does submit to
any god.
with humans directly, he sent angels in bodily form to convey messages
to humans. He even personally wrestled with the occasional human.
Satan was nowhere to be found in the OT (until the farcical story of
Job, where god has a bet with Satan at Job's expense).
Why is that? Why is it that Satan is (to hear the Bible thumpers) so
strong and god is so pathetically weak that he needs idiot humans to
help him out? Is it because there is no god?
174. Heaven! How often are we regaled with the joys of Heaven here in
a.a.? Eternity in the bliss of this god of theirs.
But do these idiots really have the first inkling of what they're
actually saying? No! First of all they have no idea how long eternity
actually is. Secondly, they have no idea of what it would be like to
suffer it.
Imagine your favorite food or drink, or even your favorite pastime.
Think about it. Immerse yourself in it. Wallow in it. Let's pick
chocolate for an example (with apologies to those allergic to it).
Imagine being given leave to indulge yourself in it (and only in it)
for as long as you want.
That first bar of chocolate would be amazing, especially if you hadn't
had chocolate in a long time and it was a small bar and you were
feeling particularly peckish. But would you want to roll right into a
second bar, and if you did would it be as wonderful? What about the
fifth bar? You've had nothing to drink and no other food, because you
elected to spend eternity with chocolate. Now is it so good?
What about the fiftieth bar, one after another? The 5 millionth bar?
The trillionth bar? Would you relish that trillionth bar like you did
the first one?
What if you had chosen basketball, or a video game, or a favorite piece
of music? The first hour might be terrific, the second might be good.
The third? Okay. The fourth? Well it's getting tiresome now. The
tenth hour? The tenth year? The millionth year? The billionth year?
Now let's add reality to the mix (religious "reality" that is). So
this is not a bar of chocolate, or a video or ball game, or music or a
movie. It's god. This is the god that makes Wayne Gacy look like
Ronald McDonald. (Oh...he *did* look like Ronald McDonald. My bad!).
This is the god who flushed the planet because he himself made a
serious mistake. He didn't painlessly dematerialize the bad and
preserve the good, he drowned children and babies and animals.
This is the god who told Biblical personalities to sacrifice their
sons.
This is the god who set bears on children for making fun of a bald man.
This is the god who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn't
DanielSan
> "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1118517008.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
>
>>If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
>>made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later?
>
>
>
> Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
> Where
> does the authority to substantiate that right come from? Even if we forgo
> the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
> creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
> creature cannot help even himself?
And if the creature *CAN* help himself?
>
>
>
> Rather, it all started by a question from a cunning tester that put the
> doubts into the creature's mind to question his creator.
There are no doubts in my mind. There is no "creator" to agrue against.
<snip to end>
societopia.net
...
> Once again, for the congenitally stupid, this is about evidence for a
> god. In order to argue your case, you need to establish that there is
> a god and that you know this god's mind like your own. I don't see you
> doing that.
What's preventing people from reading your lengthy argumentations is your
naughty vocabulary :-) No wonder you keep reposting them ad nauseam :-)
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
societopia.net
"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
...
> > Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
>
> Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
One's parents are not his/her creators. They cannot decide what kind of a
child they would have. The child is a separate person that is a child of
God. Even a person's chance, from a perspective of biological capacity, to
cause children to come to life is not in his/her hand.
>
> > Where
> > does the authority to substantiate that right come from? Even if we
forgo
> > the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
> > creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
> > creature cannot help even himself?
>
> And if the creature *CAN* help himself?
Help himself to what? To what is being created for him already?
["Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in
barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more
valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his
life? "] Matthew 6:26-27
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
> ...
>
>>>Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
>>
>>Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
>
>
> One's parents are not his/her creators.
Sure they are. Have your parents taught you about the "birds and the
bees" yet? Y'see, when a man loves a woman very, very much...
> They cannot decide what kind of a
> child they would have. The child is a separate person that is a child of
> God. Even a person's chance, from a perspective of biological capacity, to
> cause children to come to life is not in his/her hand.
So, it wasn't my father's and mother's decision, on a cold evening in
Febrary to let the snow-shoveling be damned and, instead, retire to the
bedroom for a little... y'know?
>
>
>
>>> Where
>>>does the authority to substantiate that right come from? Even if we
>
> forgo
>
>>>the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
>>>creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
>>>creature cannot help even himself?
>>
>>And if the creature *CAN* help himself?
>
>
>
>
> Help himself to what? To what is being created for him already?
I don't know. You brought it up.
>
>
> ["Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in
> barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more
> valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his
> life? "] Matthew 6:26-27
The "heavenly Father" does not feed the birds. The birds, like humans,
find food to eat, whether it is theft from gardens, or finding food
along the ground.
And yes, we are not much more valuable than they. It's homochauvinisitc
to assume that human beings have more "worth" than birds, pigs, sheep,
cows, or any other animal you can think of. We are animals, just as they.
societopia.net
> societopia.net wrote:
> > "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> > news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
> > ...
> >
> >>>Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
> >>
> >>Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
> >
> >
> > One's parents are not his/her creators.
>
> Sure they are. Have your parents taught you about the "birds and the
> bees" yet? Y'see, when a man loves a woman very, very much...
Sure they enjoyed God's gift to his creatures of feeling love to each other.
But neither created the semen nor the eggs. Even if you put in a Petri dish
the amino acids components of both all you would get is a dish of slim; no
life. Only God creates life.
...
> > ["Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in
> > barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more
> > valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to
his
> > life? "] Matthew 6:26-27
>
> The "heavenly Father" does not feed the birds. The birds, like humans,
> find food to eat, whether it is theft from gardens, or finding food
> along the ground.
The plants of the garden came to life by God's will. Again if you were to
mix the amino acids components of a plant in a Petri dish and blow out of
your mouth in it, all you would get is some slim sputtered all over the lab
table :-) God creates life.
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:EUHqe.4270$gL4.1668@trnddc07...
>
>>societopia.net wrote:
>>
>>>"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
>>>
>>>
>>>One's parents are not his/her creators.
>>
>>Sure they are. Have your parents taught you about the "birds and the
>>bees" yet? Y'see, when a man loves a woman very, very much...
>
>
> Sure they enjoyed God's gift to his creatures of feeling love to each other.
> But neither created the semen nor the eggs.
I'm creating sperm and semen right now. It's called nature.
> Even if you put in a Petri dish
> the amino acids components of both all you would get is a dish of slim; no
> life. Only God creates life.
That's a bit limited in thinking. At this moment, we do not know how
"slime" first became life, but to say "God" did it shuts off pathways to
knowledge; it keeps man ignorant.
Of course, this is what God was hoping for in the Bible; for Adam and
Eve to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, because, according to
Genesis, knowledge is bad and ignorance is bliss.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>["Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in
>>>barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more
>>>valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to
>
> his
>
>>>life? "] Matthew 6:26-27
>>
>>The "heavenly Father" does not feed the birds. The birds, like humans,
>>find food to eat, whether it is theft from gardens, or finding food
>>along the ground.
>
>
> The plants of the garden came to life by God's will. Again if you were to
> mix the amino acids components of a plant in a Petri dish and blow out of
> your mouth in it, all you would get is some slim sputtered all over the lab
> table :-) God creates life.
Sorry, but placing "God" in the current gap of knowledge is the same as
saying that the sun is a god to which we must not piss off if we hope to
have it rise in the morning.
Budikka666
Dale
news:fsHqe.1650860$6l.1414589@pd7tw2no...
What planet are you on?
raven1
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1118517008.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>...
>
>> If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
>> made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later?
>
>
>Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
Why not? Who died and left him God, as the expression goes?
> Where
>does the authority to substantiate that right come from?
Where does God's supposed authority come from?
> Even if we forgo
>the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
>creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
>creature cannot help even himself?
Please rephrase this so it makes sense; I'm not sure what you're
getting at.
>
>
>
>Rather, it all started by a question from a cunning tester that put the
>doubts into the creature's mind to question his creator.
>
>["Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the Garden'?"]
>Genesis 3:1
>
>
>
>Subsequent to that question, man made every attempt to achieve his will,
>whether with or without God.
>
>
>
>The authority to question a creator's design must be driven from a capacity
>to create.
Why?
> Since man does not have the latter
Who built the computer you're reading this on?
>he ought not to assume the
>former.
Non Sequitur.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
vivapa...@aol.com
Budikka666 wrote:
> Of all the confessions we in a.a. hear from believers, the four most
> amazing ones to me are these:
>
> A. God isn't perfect.
>
> B. God cannot judge.
>
> C. God is impotent (not omnipotent).
>
> D. Heaven is Hell.
>
Sounds like someone is pulling your leg.
Prayer To Christ The King:
O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge You as Universal King. All that has been
made, was created for You. Exercise over me all the rights that You
have.
I renew my baptismal promises, renouncing Satan, his pomps and his
works, and I promise to live as a good Christian. Especially do I
pledge myself by all the means in my power to bring about the triumph
of the rights of God and of Your Church.
Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer You my poor actions to obtain that all
hearts may recognize Your consecrated Kingship and that thus the
Kingdom of Your peace may be established in the whole world. Amen.
Dale
[...]
> The plants of the garden came to life by God's will. Again if you were to
> mix the amino acids components of a plant in a Petri dish and blow out of
> your mouth in it, all you would get is some slim sputtered all over the
lab
> table :-) God creates life.
So, in your Universe, your God takes amino acids and assembles them "by
hand" to create life? I take then that where you come from life proceeds by
apparent spontaneous generation. Interesting. Where does your God get the
amino acids from, do they come ready made in your Universe? Do you have a
Satan to make them? Or maybe you just forgot to mention that your God hand
assembles the amino acids from carbon, hydrogen, etc.
Seems like a lot of work. Here in our Universe, life begets life, it's a
sort of self-perpetuating factory that requires no intervention, never did,
never will. I guess if we have a God, He must be a lot more laid back than
yours, though I must say there's no evidence that we actually have one. But
if we do, then it's clear that He made all the rules of our Universe so that
things would just develop on their own, without intervention. Of course, it
could be that the Universe is just the way it is, and doesn't require God at
all. That's certainly the way it seems to be.
DanielSan
>
> Budikka666 wrote:
>
>>Of all the confessions we in a.a. hear from believers, the four most
>>amazing ones to me are these:
>>
>>A. God isn't perfect.
>>
>>B. God cannot judge.
>>
>>C. God is impotent (not omnipotent).
>>
>>D. Heaven is Hell.
>>
>
>
> Sounds like someone is pulling your leg.
Right. Christians are trying to pull our leg.
<snip lengthy signature>
Budikka666
> "DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
> ...
> > > Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
> >
> > Yes. I argue sometimes against my parents. It's called love.
>
> One's parents are not his/her creators.
Oh, so some god magicks the child into existence? Planned Parenthood
will be rather disappointed to hear that.
> They cannot decide what kind of a
> child they would have.
Every parent does this. Parents have always done this by choosing what
kind of partner to parent with. And with genetic technology, its
becoming more specific with each day that passes.
> The child is a separate person that is a child of God.
Once again you make a blind assertion without a shred of evidence.
Before you even mention the word "god" again, let's see some proof
there is one, shall we, otherwise all we're dealing with is your blind,
stupid bullshit.
[Rest of blind, stupid bullshit deleted]
Budikka
duke
>Of all the confessions we in a.a. hear from believers, the four most
>amazing ones to me are these:
Thats from the atheists like you bud.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Clayton...Less Calories, More Filling
Naughty vocabulary?
Katt
wrote in message news:42ab73a5$0$16491$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Oh, for crying out loud! Just think about it -- 'societopia' actually thinks
that 'congenital' *has something to do with sexual organs*...!!!
LOLOL!!!
Katt.
societopia.net
"Katt" <seruhs...@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:KXKqe.7276$q46....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
....
> > Naughty vocabulary?
>
> Oh, for crying out loud! Just think about it -- 'societopia' actually
thinks
> that 'congenital' *has something to do with sexual organs*...!!!
>
> LOLOL!!!
>
> Katt.
Naughty: Middle English "noughti" was derived from nought, which primarily
meant "nothing". I used it here to mean simply "bad quality"
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
Vic Sagerquist
> God bless you,
Fuck you too.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think
there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading
around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and
praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
Vic Sagerquist
farted, whirled, then shouted:
>
>> >congenitally
Hehe, hehe, he said genitals.
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>
Bullshit, you said naughty. This is the 21st century. Say waht you
mean, or look it up first.
> God bless you,
Fuck you too.
--
Vic Sagerquist
> The plants of the garden came to life by God's will.
They most certainly did not.
Vic Sagerquist
>> Sure they enjoyed God's gift to his creatures of feeling love to each
>> other. But neither created the semen nor the eggs.
>
> I'm creating sperm and semen right now. It's called nature.
Did you put a keyboard on her face, or do you type left-handed?
:-)
DanielSan
> On 11 Jun 2005, DanielSan dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
>
>
>>>Sure they enjoyed God's gift to his creatures of feeling love to each
>>>other. But neither created the semen nor the eggs.
>>
>>I'm creating sperm and semen right now. It's called nature.
>
>
> Did you put a keyboard on her face, or do you type left-handed?
None of your businesss! ;-)
societopia.net
"Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9672D461...@216.196.97.136...
...
> "I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
> think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
> parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
> white and praying to a rock."
> [Howard Stern]
No. It is your voilence that is sickening you. Your anger is consuming
you. The moment you would cease using threats and violence to have your way
in life is the day that you would see love in life.
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
Olrik
Sounds like someone pulled out your brain.
I'm so sorry for you.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Vic Sagerquist
shouted:
>
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9672D461...@216.196.97.136...
> ...
>> "I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
>> think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
>> parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
>> white and praying to a rock."
>> [Howard Stern]
>
> No. It is your voilence that is sickening you.
What is voilence?
> Your anger is
> consuming you.
You've already been consumed by your religious masters. You have no
life.
> The moment you would cease using threats and violence
> to have your way in life is the day that you would see love in life.
Religion is the furthest thing from love. It is mind control. And they
gotcha.
>
> God bless you,
Fuck your god, and fuck you too.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
societopia.net
...
> >> "I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
> >> think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
> >> parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
> >> white and praying to a rock."
> >> [Howard Stern]
> >
> > No. It is your voilence that is sickening you.
>
> What is voilence?
It is a shame you can not sense the anger in your words. This is the reason
that your heart is sick. Your tactics of engaging this discussion is
nothing other than intimidation and fear that you use in your daily life to
get by. Fear is a powerful motive for your imagination. This is why you
went down all over the threads of discussion with curses at every one.
It is not God or the Pope that is causing your grief at the world. I doubt
if the pope had done any thing wrong to you. Your anger allows you only the
tactics of fear, intimidation and threats to attempt convincing people of
your way, yet they are not convinced and you are blinded from seeing that.
The more you ferment in anger and express thoughts of violence at others the
more you blind your senses from understanding love and lock yourself in this
culture of ever cursing, angry and bitter soul. There is more to give to
the world if you were to sense love.
God bless you,
thomas p
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1118519073.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>...
>> Once again, for the congenitally stupid, this is about evidence for a
>> god. In order to argue your case, you need to establish that there is
>> a god and that you know this god's mind like your own. I don't see you
>> doing that.
>
>What's preventing people from reading your lengthy argumentations is your
>naughty vocabulary :-) No wonder you keep reposting them ad nauseam :-)
>
I notice that you were unable to respond to the point being made and
had to post a meaningless insult instead - pathetic.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
thomas p
<socie...@societopia.net> wrote:
>
>"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:1118517008.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>...
>
>> If the creation were perfect, why did this god become sorry he ever
>> made us just an eye-blink (in God-time) later?
>
>
>Ought the creature to assume the right to argue against his creator?
What creator? There is none in evidence. The teachings of one
religion are being questioned. Your answer is not responsive to the
questions, and it assumes its conclusion.
Where
>does the authority to substantiate that right come from? Even if we forgo
>the right to question and ask about the benefit of such process; can the
>creature benefit the other creatures by questioning the creator when the
>creature cannot help even himself?
Are you able to respond to the question itself without assuming your
conclusion? Are you even able to understand the error in logic you
are making?
snip
Budikka666
Edition" in a.a. at 6:38pm (http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb) Earl J. Weber of
Baton Rouge said, "I keep offering to discuss your failures on your
questions with you, but you run away. Pick one subject line on the
bible or God, as I've offered to you many times, and we will talk
again. Why are you so afraid of discussion, bud?"
Every single time I've seen that Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge has made
such a challenge on *anything* I've taken up his offer, and every
single time, he's run away. What happened this time? Let's see:
Just 24 hours later, I took up his offer:
"Let's discuss the issue of of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations. Are you up
for it?"
And ever since then, Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge has been running
away, as he always does. So we can readily see who the real coward is
and what a pathetic little liar Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge truly is.
I've been asking Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge to engage in this
particular "one subject line on the bible or God" since April 30th and
Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge has been consistently running from it. I
wonder why? Could it be that if he is forced to tell the truth here,
it will validate what I've been demonstrating consistently for eight
months: that Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge is a monumental liar and a
colossal coward and pathetic little hypocrite?
Maybe I should open a dedicated thread to it, just to expose his
cowardice to Usenet a little more widely.
Budikka
Masked Avenger
thanks for the attempted psychology but your premise is all wrong .....
before you can assert the 'power' of this God person you seem so devoted
to ..... you have to prove it exists ..... you haven't ..... thanks for
playing .....
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Masked Avenger
sounds like you are a grovelling delusional sycophant ....
Masked Avenger
>
>>societopia.net wrote:
>>
>>>"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>news:TnHqe.4257$gL4.418@trnddc07...
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>One's parents are not his/her creators.
>>
>>bees" yet? Y'see, when a man loves a woman very, very much...
>
>
> Sure they enjoyed God's gift to his creatures of feeling love to each other.
> the amino acids components of both all you would get is a dish of slim; no
> life. Only God creates life.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>["Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in
>>>barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more
>>>valuable than they? 27Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to
>
> his
>
>>>life? "] Matthew 6:26-27
>>
>>The "heavenly Father" does not feed the birds. The birds, like humans,
>>find food to eat, whether it is theft from gardens, or finding food
>>along the ground.
>
>
> The plants of the garden came to life by God's will. Again if you were to
> mix the amino acids components of a plant in a Petri dish and blow out of
> your mouth in it, all you would get is some slim sputtered all over the lab
> table :-) God creates life.
>
>
please come back when you have some evidence for this bullshit ....
duke
Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible or God, I'm here waiting
on you.
You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
Are you up to it?
Bob Pease
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:d6coa1h6h0tfnss2j...@4ax.com...
Instant snore..
Duck vs. Bud
Blind leadeth the blind
Popester
Vic Sagerquist
whirled, then shouted:
>
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9672E0D0...@216.196.97.136...
> ...
>
>> >> "I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I
>> >> don't think there's any difference between the pope wearing a
>> >> large hat and parading around with a smoking purse and an African
>> >> painting his face white and praying to a rock."
>> >> [Howard Stern]
>> >
>> > No. It is your voilence that is sickening you.
>>
>> What is voilence?
>
> It is a shame you can not sense the anger in your words.
It is a shame you can not sense the irrelevance in yours. Why are you
trashing an atheist newsgroup with religious bullshit?
> This is the
> reason that your heart is sick.
Hey, you're the one who worships a fabricated idol.
> Your tactics of engaging this
> discussion is nothing other than intimidation and fear that you use
> in your daily life to get by.
Pissed you off, did I? <snicker>
> Fear is a powerful motive for your
> imagination.
Fear is the basis of all religion. Go fear your gods by yourself and
leave the adults alone now.
> This is why you went down all over the threads of
> discussion with curses at every one.
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, I like to curse.
>
>
>
> It is not God or the Pope that is causing your grief at the world.
What grief, liar?
> I doubt if the pope had done any thing wrong to you.
Who gives a fuck about the poop?
<snip snivel rant>
>
>
> God bless you,
>
Fuck you too.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
Vic Sagerquist
whirled, then shouted:
> No, there is nothing that I have insulted you with before you went
> mad with curses.
You invaded an atheist newsgroup and posted off-topic christian
apologetics. You got flamed for it. Poor baby.
> I do not engage discussions with violent animals
Neither do I. They don't tend to hold up their end of an argument.
> that have the propensity to commit criminal acts.
What criminal acts, liar?
> It is clear to me
> know the reaction of the American Right towards those who call
> themselves atheists.
Usenet is international, idiot.
> The more that people do not respond to your
> intimidations the higher the possibility that a violent animal (since
> according to your claims you are an animal) might propagate their
> violent thoughts and lack the capacity to stop before committing a
> crime.
Which is why the prisons in America are 99.9% Christian. Riiiiight.
> God bless you,
Fuck You Too.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
duke
wrote:
>Instant snore..
>Duck vs. Bud
>Blind leadeth the blind
>Popester
Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Natalie Clifford Barney
duke wrote:
"Hitler will save the Church and Europe from Communism."
St Josemaria Escriva
Nice Church, Duke.......
>
> *****
--
When asked how he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans that they
cannot come home from war in Iraq and get married, Gov Rick Perry replied
"Texans made a decision about marriage and if there's a state that has more
lenient views than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live."
societopia.net
...
> You invaded an atheist newsgroup and posted off-topic christian
> apologetics. You got flamed for it. Poor baby.
Is that the excuse for your violence? You consider this newsgroup your
territory and that I invaded it? Do you think that people take you
seriously when your likes call God psychotic? That's why the Bible commands
to love your enemies because sometimes people imagine certain rights (like
you imagining this newsgroup your territory) and imagine those who disagree
on those so-called right enemies (like you imagining me an invader)
In any case, even if your fantasy world, one becomes at any situation an
invader to your territory (let's say at school among your friends) what
would you do to them?
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
Tom
>
> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible or God, I'm here
> waiting
> on you.
>
> You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one
> yourself,
> I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
>
> Are you up to it?
What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
Tom
> On 12 Jun 2005 12:22:35 EDT, "Bob Pease" <robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Instant snore..
>>Duck vs. Bud
>>Blind leadeth the blind
>>Popester
>
> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
Yeah, and you can't put up much support for your nonexistent flood.
Budikka666
> On 12 Jun 2005 04:39:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible
> or God, I'm here waiting on you.
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> You keep running away from such a thread
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
Why do you imagine that piling more lies on top of previous lies is
somehow going to hide the previous lies?
Biblical flood? Been there, done that: http://tinyurl.com/4dyok,
thread in a.a. "Duke: Global Flood Challenge" started by me at **YOUR**
insistence on Sep 16 2004, 6:05 am. **YOU RAN AWAY** and Google proves
it!
You ran away so many times from the simplest questions imaginable that
you forced me to ask follow-up after follow-up question simply to pin
you down to the facts. There accumulated so many follow-up questions
that I was forced to start a separate thread just for those in a.a.:
"Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly, Lying,
Hypocritical Asshole" (http://tinyurl.com/6nla2). What did you do?
**YOU RAN AWAY**! and Google proves it!!
You started a lie there that I've been trying to resolve with you in
christian fashion ever since, but you don't have the decency and
honesty and integrity to face up to the consequences of your actions.
I began a dedicated thread on *that* topic alone with your agreement,
but you broke the agreement and **YOU RAN AWAY**!!!! No surprises
there. Remember that thread, Earl? "Discussing Duke's Plagiarism
Accusation" (http://tinyurl.com/6mf6m) started in a.a. on Feb 13, 2:05
pm. Your response? **YOU RAN AWAY**!!!!!
There was even a flood edition of the "Why There Isn't a God" series,
started in a.a. on Dec 31 2004, 5:28 am (http://tinyurl.com/4569y). If
you actually *were* a man, you could have taken up the issues you
previously fled from right there. Did you? Nope! **YOU RAN
AWAY**!!!!!!
But that's ancient history. Let's see what happened *recently* shall
we?
On June 7th in thread "Why There Is no God - Parts 156-170 - The Why
Edition" in a.a. at 6:38pm (http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb) Earl J. Weber of
Baton Rouge said, "I keep offering to discuss your failures on your
questions with you, but you run away. Pick one subject line on the
bible or God, as I've offered to you many times, and we will talk
again. Why are you so afraid of discussion, bud?"
Does that sound familiar? It's almost word for word precisely what you
just wrote here. But the funny thing is that as soon as I take up your
offer, **YOU RUN AWAY**!
In fact, every single time I've seen that Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge
has offered a challenge on *anything* I've taken up his offer, and
every single time, *8HE'S RUN AWAY**.
So what was it that happened on *this* occasion when, just 24 hours
later, I specifically accepted his offer to discuss something on the
Bible or god? Let's see:
Budikka666
> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
On June 7th in thread "Why There Is no God - Parts 156-170 - The Why
Budikka666
If there's one thing Earl *has* convincingly proven to Usenet, it's
that he's utterly incapable of learning. No matter how many times he
gets his idiot ass kicked, he masochistically keeps on coming back for
more. Maybe he likes being bitch-slapped.
I think he really seriously *does* want to meet me in court. That's
kinda touching in a way, but if he truly were man enough to stand up
for his beliefs in court, you'd think he'd email me his home address so
I could get my lawyer to contact him and arrange a date, wouldn't you7
That would save me having to hire a PI to track him down. I guess he's
kinda shy....
B.
Vic Sagerquist
whirled, then shouted:
>
> "Vic Sagerquist" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns967369CB...@127.0.0.1...
> ...
>
>> You invaded an atheist newsgroup and posted off-topic christian
>> apologetics. You got flamed for it. Poor baby.
>
> Is that the excuse for your violence?
What violence, liar?
> You consider this newsgroup
> your territory and that I invaded it?
Read the FAQ before you post, troll.
> Do you think that people take
> you seriously when your likes call God psychotic?
Do you think that people take you seriously when you say there is such a
thing without supplying evidence for you absurd claim.
Begone, troll.
<snip>
Bill
Yes, play tell us about the Biblical flood and Noah's Ark. What is your
objective evidence that this is not an impossible myth???
Mike Painter
> Tom wrote:
>
> I think he really seriously *does* want to meet me in court. That's
> kinda touching in a way, but if he truly were man enough to stand up
> for his beliefs in court, you'd think he'd email me his home address
> so I could get my lawyer to contact him and arrange a date, wouldn't
> you7 That would save me having to hire a PI to track him down. I
> guess he's kinda shy....
There is nothing to contradict the idea that he is Earl Weber of Baton Rouge
LA. His address and phone number is a matter of public record. You would
only have to determine the apartment number.
DanielSan
> On 12 Jun 2005 04:39:27 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible or God, I'm here waiting
> on you.
>
> You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
> I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
I don't know about Bud, but I'm up to it. Care to discuss, duke the puke?
>
> Are you up to it?
Are you? The Biblical Flood wherein the entirety of the Earth was
covered never happened. Please cite geologic or archaeologic findings
wherein the Biblical Flood claim can be proven.
Thanks!
DanielSan
> On 12 Jun 2005 12:22:35 EDT, "Bob Pease" <robe...@popebobby2.youknow.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Instant snore..
>>Duck vs. Bud
>>Blind leadeth the blind
>>Popester
>
>
> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
I didn't know she needed to.
Katt
>>
>>> > Naughty vocabulary?
>>>
>>> Oh, for crying out loud! Just think about it -- 'societopia' actually
>> thinks
>>> that 'congenital' *has something to do with sexual organs*...!!!
>>>
>>> LOLOL!!!
>>>
>>
>> Naughty: Middle English "noughti" was derived from nought, which
>> primarily meant "nothing". I used it here to mean simply "bad quality"
>>
>
>
> Bullshit, you said naughty. This is the 21st century. Say waht you
> mean, or look it up first.
And you can see what happened, can't you: all this crap about 'Middle
English' is the direct result of our clownish interlocutor *looking at
www.dictionary.com to see what 'congenital' actually means*...!!!
LOL!!
Katt.
Katt
>
>>
>> Prayer To Christ The King:
>>
>> O Christ Jesus, I acknowledge You as Universal King. All that has been
>> made, was created for You. Exercise over me all the rights that You
>> have.
Please master can I touch your cheek
please master can I kneel at your feet
please master can I loosen your blue pants
please master can I gaze at your golden haired belly
please master can I have your thighs bare to my eyes
please master can I take off my clothes below your chair
please master can I can I kiss your ankles and soul
please master can I touch lips to your hard muscle hairless thigh
please master can I lay my ear pressed to your stomach
please master can I wrap my arms around your white ass
please master can I lick your groin gurled with blond soft fur
please master can I touch my tongue to your rosy asshole
please master may I pass my face to your balls,
please master order me down on the floor,
please master tell me to lick your thick shaft
please master put your rough hands on my bald hairy skull
please master press my mouth to your prick-heart
please master press my face into your belly, pull me slowly strong thumbed
till your dumb hardness fills my throat to the base
till I swallow and taste your delicate flesh-hot prick barrel veined Please
Mater push my shoulders away and stare in my eyes, & make me bend over
the table
please master grab my thighs and lift my ass to your waist
please master your hand's rough stroke on my neck your palm down to my
backside
please master push me, my feet on chairs, till my hole feels the breath of
your spit and your thumb stroke
please master make my say Please Master Fuck me now Please
Master grease my balls and hairmouth with sweet vaselines
please master stroke your shaft with white creams
please master touch your cock head to my wrinkled self-hole
please master push it in gently, your elbows enwrapped round my breast
your arms passing down to my belly, my penis you touch w/ your fingers
please master shove it in me a little, a little, a little,
please master sink your droor thing down my behind
& please master make me wiggle my rear to eat up the prick trunk
till my asshalfs cuddle your thighs, my back bent over,
till I'm alone sticking out, your sword stuck throbbing in me
please master pull out and slowly roll onto the bottom
please master lunge it again, and withdraw the tip
please please master fuck me again with your self, please fuck me Please
Master drive down till it hurts me the softness the
Softness please master make love to my ass, give body to center, & fuck me
for good like a girl,
tenderly clasp me please master I take me to thee,
& drive in my belly your selfsame sweet heat-rood
you fingered in solitude Denver or Brooklyn or fucked in a maiden in Paris
carlots
please master drive me thy vehicle, body of love drops, sweat fuck
body of tenderness, Give me your dogh fuck faster
please master make me go moan on the table
Go moan O please master do fuck me like that
in your rhythm thrill-plunge & pull-back-bounce & push down
till I loosen my asshole a dog on the table yelping with terror delight to
be
loved
Please master call me a dog, an ass beast, a wet asshole,
& fuck me more violent, my eyes hid with your palms round my skull
& plunge down in a brutal hard lash thru soft drip-fish
& throb thru five seconds to spurt out your semen heat
over & over, bamming it in while I cry out your name I do love you
please Master.
Allen Ginsberg May 1968
duke
<SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>"Hitler will save the Church and Europe from Communism."
>St Josemaria Escriva
>Nice Church, Duke.......
Hitler didn't have anything to do with saving the Church from Communism. The
Church helped save Europe from Hitler.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
>Yeah, and you can't put up much support for your nonexistent flood.
What flood? I'm the one that proclaims that no one knows if there was a flood
or not.
Good grief but you can't keep your facts straight.
duke
>Maybe I should open a dedicated thread to it, just to expose his
>cowardice to Usenet a little more widely.
>Budikka
I've been trying for the last 4 months to get you to do just that. And you keep
running away.
I suggest "the biblical flood".
duke
She does.
duke
>What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
>damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
How do you know there was no biblical flood?
duke
wrote:
When are you going to reveal your real name to the ng, mikey?
duke
>> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible
>> or God, I'm here waiting on you.
>I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
Waiting, bud the dud.
duke
>Yes, play tell us about the Biblical flood and Noah's Ark. What is your
>objective evidence that this is not an impossible myth???
What is "objective" evidence?
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>> You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
>> I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
>I don't know about Bud, but I'm up to it. Care to discuss, duke the puke?
Bud the dud keeps running away, so I may have to take you up on that.
>Are you? The Biblical Flood wherein the entirety of the Earth was
>covered never happened. Please cite geologic or archaeologic findings
>wherein the Biblical Flood claim can be proven.
Please cite same where it can be proven to not have occurred.
Tom
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:22:24 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
>
>>Yeah, and you can't put up much support for your nonexistent flood.
>
> What flood? I'm the one that proclaims that no one knows if there was a
> flood
> or not.
>
> Good grief but you can't keep your facts straight.
Right Earl, and I'm the one that says there is no geologic evidence of a
global catastrophic flood. Care to dispute that, Earl?
Tom
Never mind that Earl, he isn't 'in demand' like you are.
Tom
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:21:33 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
>>damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
>
> How do you know there was no biblical flood?
Because there is no evidence where there should be evidence, Puke. You
remember this from the last time I kicked your ass, don't you?
Tom
> On 12 Jun 2005 11:25:05 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible
>>> or God, I'm here waiting on you.
>
>>I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
>
> Waiting, bud the dud.
Yep, you're waiting alright. You're waiting and hoping that others will
forget your duplicity.
Tom
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:55:52 -0400, "Bill" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, play tell us about the Biblical flood and Noah's Ark. What is your
>>objective evidence that this is not an impossible myth???
>
> What is "objective" evidence?
Yep, like arguing with a fence post, except the fence post is smarter.
Masked Avenger
> "Masked Avenger" <coot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42ac27d2$0$16493$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ...
>
>
>>thanks for the attempted psychology but your premise is all wrong .....
>>before you can assert the 'power' of this God person you seem so devoted
>>to ..... you have to prove it exists ..... you haven't ..... thanks for
>>playing .....
>
>
> No, there is nothing that I have insulted you with before you went mad with
> curses. I do not engage discussions with violent animals that have the
> propensity to commit criminal acts. It is clear to me know the reaction of
> the American Right towards those who call themselves atheists. The more that
> people do not respond to your intimidations the higher the possibility that
> a violent animal (since according to your claims you are an animal) might
> propagate their violent thoughts and lack the capacity to stop before
> committing a crime.
>
>
> God bless you,
> www.societopia.net
>
>
Um ..... I have never insulted you .....nor have I cursed you ..... you
are so rabid with hate you have been blinded to reality, you don't pay
any attention to who you are responding.... I am not Vic Sagerquist( but
I agree with him ) ..... I have merely asked you to prove this God chap
exists ......
what makes you think I am a 'wild animal' ... ? and what has the
American Right got to do with it ? .... you're not making a lot of sense
...... typical for a rabid Christian .......... once again ..... show us
some evidence for this 'God' of yours or admit you are wrong ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Masked Avenger
> ...
>
>
>>You invaded an atheist newsgroup and posted off-topic christian
>>apologetics. You got flamed for it. Poor baby.
>
>
> territory and that I invaded it?
It is an NG for Atheists you idiot ...... it has a Charter and YOU have
abused it ..... whether you like it or not ....... therefore we are
quite within our rights to Flame you if we wish ..... so don't complain
...... you asked for it ....... keep your Christian bullshit to the
Christian NG's ......
> Do you think that people take you
> seriously when your likes call God psychotic?
Yep... in here they do ....
> That's why the Bible commands
> to love your enemies because sometimes people imagine certain rights (like
> you imagining this newsgroup your territory) and imagine those who disagree
> on those so-called right enemies (like you imagining me an invader)
You ARE an invader and the Bible doesn't command anything ...... it is a
collection of Bronze Age fairy tales ....... nothing more ....
>
> In any case, even if your fantasy world, one becomes at any situation an
> invader to your territory (let's say at school among your friends) what
> would you do to them?
call them nasty names ...... and tell the teacher ......
> God bless you,
> www.societopia.net
you spelt Sociopath wrong .......
Masked Avenger
fairly obvious wasn't it ...... ( chuckle ) ......
Masked Avenger
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:21:33 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
>>damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
>
>
> How do you know there was no biblical flood?
>
> duke
Oh come on Duke ..... any school kid knows that one ......"because there
is NO evidence for it" ..... unless you know of some .... ?
Natalie Clifford Barney
duke wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:22:24 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, she can't put up much of a support for her nonexistent beliefs.
>
> >Yeah, and you can't put up much support for your nonexistent flood.
>
> What flood? I'm the one that proclaims that no one knows if there was a flood
> or not.
>
> Good grief but you can't keep your facts straight.
>
> duke
> *****
> Hitler will save the Church from Communism
St Josemaria Escriva
--
When asked how he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans that they cannot
come home from war in Iraq and get married, Gov Rick Perry replied "Texans made a
decision about marriage and if there's a state that has more lenient views than
Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live."
Natalie Clifford Barney
duke wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2005 11:27:23 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I should open a dedicated thread to it, just to expose his
> >cowardice to Usenet a little more widely.
> >Budikka
>
> I've been trying for the last 4 months to get you to do just that. And you keep
> running away.
>
> I suggest "the biblical flood".
>
> duke
> *****
> "WHORE....SOW....PIG! Pull down her panties and give her a
> spanking"
> St. Josemaria Escriva
> *****
Masked Avenger
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:35:53 GMT, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
>>>I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
>
>
>>I don't know about Bud, but I'm up to it. Care to discuss, duke the puke?
>
>
> Bud the dud keeps running away, so I may have to take you up on that.
>
>
>>Are you? The Biblical Flood wherein the entirety of the Earth was
>>covered never happened. Please cite geologic or archaeologic findings
>>wherein the Biblical Flood claim can be proven.
>
>
> Please cite same where it can be proven to not have occurred.
>
You're the one making the positive claim ...... it's up to you to
provide the evidence ....... it's quite obvious there was NO Biblical
Flood, the geological record shows that ..... now if you have some
'extraordinary evidence' to support your 'extraordinary claim' of a
Biblical Flood ..... please supply it ......
Natalie Clifford Barney
duke wrote:
> ?
>
> duke
> *****
> ""Hitler had been unjustly accused of killing 6 million Jews.In
> fact he had killed only 4 million."
Bob Pease
> duke wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:21:33 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn
a
> >>damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
> >
> >
> > How do you know there was no biblical flood?
> >
> > duke
>
>
> Oh come on Duke ..... any school kid knows that one ......"because there
> is NO evidence for it" ..... unless you know of some .... ?
>
because all o'them fossils is in rock layers which was layed down in the
Flood.
And the layers is in all in order, exceptn where they ain't cus the debbil
done turned them upside down .
That was knoowed as a homo ( scuse the xpression) deluvoo testos when they
done found part of a guy that was drownded in the flood.
if it's good efnuf evidence fer the parson. it's good enuf fer me.
Deacon Jeeter Bob Jones.
My dad is a perfesser at Dobbs university.
I KILLED YOUR GOD-IT WAS EASY!
> duke wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:35:53 GMT, DanielSan <danie...@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>You keep running away from such a thread and you refuse to suggest one
yourself,
> >>>I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
> >
> >
> >>I don't know about Bud, but I'm up to it. Care to discuss, duke the
puke?
> >
> >
> > Bud the dud keeps running away, so I may have to take you up on that.
> >
> >
> >>Are you? The Biblical Flood wherein the entirety of the Earth was
> >>covered never happened. Please cite geologic or archaeologic findings
> >>wherein the Biblical Flood claim can be proven.
> >
> >
> > Please cite same where it can be proven to not have occurred.
> >
>
> You're the one making the positive claim ...... it's up to you to
> provide the evidence ....... it's quite obvious there was NO Biblical
> Flood, the geological record shows that ..... now if you have some
> 'extraordinary evidence' to support your 'extraordinary claim' of a
> Biblical Flood ..... please supply it ......
>
> --
> Masked Avenger
> aa#2224
he is a biological failure-in fact,puke is a failure at everything.
i have 4 grown children,and 4 grandkids-i teach them that religion is for
the weak of mind-i point out to them this puke fellow-we all have a good
laugh.
if anything-puke proves that christains are stupid.
Budikka666
This from the lying liar who claims he never lies:
> Bud the dud keeps running away, so I may have to take you up on that.
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**! And now you lie that
you want to discuss the Biblical flood where I already kicked your ass
so raw that you daren't go anywhere near any of the **FIFTY UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS** that have been biting your cowardly ass for **EIGHT
MONTHS**? LoL!
http://tinyurl.com/4dyok, thread in a.a. "Duke: Global Flood Challenge"
started by me at **YOUR** insistence on Sep 16 2004, 6:05 am. **YOU
RAN AWAY** and Google proves it!
You ran away so many times from the simplest questions imaginable that
you forced me to ask follow-up after follow-up question simply to pin
you down to the facts. There accumulated so many follow-up questions
that I was forced to start a separate thread just for those in a.a.:
"Why Puke is Such a Pathological, Unregenerate, Cowardly, Lying,
Hypocritical Asshole" (http://tinyurl.com/6nla2). What did you do?
**YOU RAN AWAY**! and Google proves it!!
You started a lie there that I've been trying to resolve with you in
christian fashion ever since, but you don't have the decency and
honesty and integrity to face up to the consequences of your actions.
I began a dedicated thread on *that* topic alone with your agreement,
but you broke the agreement and **YOU RAN AWAY**!!!! No surprises
there. Remember that thread, Earl? "Discussing Duke's Plagiarism
Accusation" (http://tinyurl.com/6mf6m) started in a.a. on Feb 13, 2:05
pm. Your response? **YOU RAN AWAY**!!!!!
There was even a flood edition of the "Why There Isn't a God" series,
started in a.a. on Dec 31 2004, 5:28 am (http://tinyurl.com/4569y). If
you actually *were* a man, you could have taken up the issues you
previously fled from right there. Did you? Nope! **YOU RAN
AWAY**!!!!!!
But that's ancient history. Let's see what happened *recently* shall
we?
On June 7th in thread "Why There Is no God - Parts 156-170 - The Why
Edition" in a.a. at 6:38pm (http://tinyurl.com/d3ubb) Earl J. Weber of
Baton Rouge said, "I keep offering to discuss your failures on your
questions with you, but you run away. Pick one subject line on the
bible or God, as I've offered to you many times, and we will talk
again. Why are you so afraid of discussion, bud?"
Does that sound familiar? It's almost word for word precisely what you
just wrote here. But the funny thing is that as soon as I take up your
offer, **YOU RUN AWAY**!
In fact, every single time I've seen that Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge
has offered a challenge on *anything* I've taken up his offer, and
every single time, *8HE'S RUN AWAY**.
So what was it that happened on *this* occasion when, just 24 hours
later, I specifically accepted his offer to discuss something on the
Bible or god? Let's see:
"Let's discuss the issue of of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations. Are you up
for it?"
And ever since then, Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge has been running
away, as he always does. So we can readily see who the real coward is
and what a pathetic little liar Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge truly is.
I've been asking Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge to engage in this
particular "one subject line on the bible or God" since April 30th and
Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge has been consistently running from it. I
wonder why? Could it be that if he is forced to tell the truth here,
it will validate what I've been demonstrating consistently for eight
months: that Earl J. Weber of Baton Rouge is a monumental liar and a
colossal coward and pathetic little hypocrite?
Budikka666
> On 12 Jun 2005 11:27:23 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >Maybe I should open a dedicated thread to it, just to expose his
> >cowardice to Usenet a little more widely.
> >Budikka
>
> I've been trying for the last 4 months to get you to do just that.
How would that be posisble when Google proves that **FIFTY UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS** have been biting your cowardly ass for eight straight
months?
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> You keep running away from such a thread
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> and you refuse to suggest one yourself,
I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
> I'm proposing the following: The Biblical flood.
Why do you imagine that piling more lies on top of previous lies is
somehow going to hide the previous lies?
Biblical flood? Been there, done that: http://tinyurl.com/4dyok,
Maybe I should open a dedicated thread to it, just to expose his
Budikka666
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:55:52 -0400, "Bill" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, play tell us about the Biblical flood and Noah's Ark. What is your
> >objective evidence that this is not an impossible myth???
>
> What is "objective" evidence?
The four examples in the opening message of this thread that you've
been running from like a scared cat since June 11th.
Oh, and I'm still waiting on you taking up that challenge you've been
running from since April 30th: Let's discuss the issue of of what God
thinks of libel. Let's discuss what God would think of someone who
made false accusations of plagiarism and let's discuss what God might
think would constitute what's legally required to substantiate true
accusations. Are you up for it?
Evidently you're not up for anything, because if you were, if you were
anything of a man at all, if you had an honest decent bone in your
body, if you had honesty and integrity, you wouldn't have dug this hole
for yourself, wouyld you now? Instead, you'd face things like a man
and take what's coming to you instead of crying like a little baby.
Budikka
Budikka666
> On 12 Jun 2005 11:25:05 -0700, "Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> Hey, bud the dud, anytime you want to discuss the bible
> >> or God, I'm here waiting on you.
>
> >I already accepted your offer - **YOU RAN AWAY**!
>
> Waiting, bud the dud.
Waiting for your cowardice and lies to be exposed yet again? Here's
the challenge. It's been all over Usenet since April 30th. I'm
waiting on your cowardly ass finding the courage to discuss it. It's
the subject line of god that *you* specifically asked for:
"Let's discuss the issue of of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations. Are you up
for it?
If you don't want to discuss it on usenet, we can meet in a court room.
I'll have my lawyer mail you at: 12074 Newcastle Ave, Baton Rouge, LA
70816-8989 if you'll confirm your address for me, or call you at (225)
293-0158 if you'll conform the phone number. Would you rather we did
that? I'm game either way. Your free will, Earl. Your choice -
either stand up like a man and be honest for once on Usenet, or get
your sorry ass whipped raw *yet again*, this time in a court room,
where your cowardice, lies and hypcorisy won't even begin to shield you
from anything.
Waiting, Duck the Shit.
Budikka
Budikka666
>
> >What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
> >damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
>
> How do you know there was no biblical flood?
There's no evidence for one, as you admitted.
Worse than that, for you, is that there's abundant evidence **against*
there having been a global flood as has been demonstrated to you
repeatedly. Unfortunately for you, you were too stupid to grasp the
evidence and not enough of a man to even begin to tackle it. As usual,
**YOU RAN AWAY**! No surprises there.
A global flood would defy the laws of physics.
There is no way an ark that size could have been built of wood in that
era.
Even if such an ark could have been built, it could not have supported
two of every species on Earth.
Even if it could have supported two of every species on Earth, that
number of organisms could not have been collected by eight people or
even 80 people.
That number of organisms could not have been redistributed after the
flood and have the distributiont hey have today.
The geologic record contains no evidence of a flood, which would have
been inevitable, as evidence shows, if there had been a global flood
that covered the planet for a year or so.
Your stupid ass was been whipped with this and more eight months ago.
You ran away. Your lost. Deal with it.
Now let's look at your latest failure. Remember this challenge that
you requested and I accepted? It's been all over Usenet since April
30th, but you're too cowardly to accept it because you know it will
prove what a colossal **LIAR** you are. That's why I'm waiting over a
month later on your cowardly ass finding the courage to discuss it.
It's the subject line of god that *you* specifically asked for:
"Let's discuss the issue of of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations. Are you up
for it?
If you don't want to discuss it on Usenet, we can meet in a court room.
I'll have my lawyer mail you at: 12074 Newcastle Ave, Baton Rouge, LA
70816-8989 if you'll confirm your address for me, or call you at (225)
293-0158 if you'll conform the phone number. Would you rather we did
that? I'm game either way. Your free will, Earl. Your choice -
either stand up like a man and be honest for once on Usenet, or get
your sorry ass whipped raw *yet again*, this time in a court room,
where your cowardice, lies and hypcorisy won't even begin to shield you
from anything.
Budikka
Favor the Truth
>duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:21:33 -0400, "Tom" <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What biblical flood Puke, there was no biblical flood. Didn't you learn a
>>>damn thing from your last foray into the flood?
>>
>>
>> How do you know there was no biblical flood?
>>
>> duke
>
>
>Oh come on Duke ..... any school kid knows that one ......"because there
>is NO evidence for it" ..... unless you know of some .... ?
+ Is this me?
+ or someone else?
Budikka666
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations. Are you up
for it?
Budikka
Paul Duca
duckg...@cox.net wrote on 6/13/05 6:24 AM:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:29:30 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
> <SalonH...@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
>
>> "Hitler will save the Church and Europe from Communism."
>> St Josemaria Escriva
>
>> Nice Church, Duke.......
>
> Hitler didn't have anything to do with saving the Church from Communism. The
> Church helped save Europe from Hitler.
>
Why? I thought every good pre-Vatican II Catholic HATED Jews, and
appreciated anyone who tried to do something about them.
Paul
Budikka666
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:02:05 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Budikka666 wrote:
> >> Tom wrote:
> > >
> >> I think he really seriously *does* want to meet me in court. That's
> >> kinda touching in a way, but if he truly were man enough to stand up
> >> for his beliefs in court, you'd think he'd email me his home address
> >> so I could get my lawyer to contact him and arrange a date, wouldn't
> >> you7 That would save me having to hire a PI to track him down. I
> >> guess he's kinda shy....
> >
> >There is nothing to contradict the idea that he is Earl Weber of Baton Rouge
> >LA. His address and phone number is a matter of public record. You would
> >only have to determine the apartment number.
>
> When are you going to reveal your real name to the ng, mikey?
The Earl-y worm gets the bird
Budikka
cactus
Masked Avenger
WTF ?! ...... oh ..... and lay off the recreational medication when
you're posting ....
Masked Avenger
Yeah .... I couldn't agree more ...... I know Earl is a hopeless case
.... but every now and then I just feel like kicking his worthless arse
..... he's such an easy target .....
duke
>You're the one making the positive claim ......
Correction - I'm the one that says there is no proof either way.
Gee, you atheists can't put it all together.
> it's up to you to
>provide the evidence ....... it's quite obvious there was NO Biblical
>Flood, the geological record shows that ..... now if you have some
>'extraordinary evidence' to support your 'extraordinary claim' of a
>Biblical Flood ..... please supply it ......
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
I KILLED YOUR GOD-IT WAS EASY!
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:58:19 +1000, Masked Avenger <coot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> >You're the one making the positive claim ......
>
> Correction - I'm the one that says there is no proof either way.
>
> Gee, you atheists can't put it all together.
>
Budikka666
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:58:19 +1000, Masked Avenger <coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >You're the one making the positive claim ......
>
> Correction - I'm the one that says there is no proof either way.
>
> Gee, you atheists can't put it all together.
Oh we repeatedly put it all together. The trouble is, you always run
away from it. Now shall we get back to the dedicated thread where
you're currently running from this discussion:
Let's discuss the issue of what God thinks of libel. Let's discuss
what God would think of someone who made false accusations of
plagiarism and let's discuss what God might think would constitute
what's legally required to substantiate true accusations.
Budikka
Masked Avenger
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:58:19 +1000, Masked Avenger <coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You're the one making the positive claim ......
>
>
> Correction - I'm the one that says there is no proof either way.
>
> Gee, you atheists can't put it all together.
You're full of shit Earl ......
>>it's up to you to
>>provide the evidence ....... it's quite obvious there was NO Biblical
>>Flood, the geological record shows that ..... now if you have some
>>'extraordinary evidence' to support your 'extraordinary claim' of a
>>Biblical Flood ..... please supply it ......
>
duke
>> Correction - I'm the one that says there is no proof either way.
>> Gee, you atheists can't put it all together.
>You're full of shit Earl ......
Hey, if somebody cut you down from head to toe, I suspect that when you fall in
2 pieces, that's exactly what would show - you're full of deaux deaux.