Re: Duke sez animals have souls!

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:24:18 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <nej7o81svlir99mau...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:41:12 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <27k4o8lfdbd8sdbe8...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:24:51 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Could be. But Mary is not mom except for Jesus.
>> >> >> >� The name of the mother (Mary) is stated in Matthew 13.
>> >> >> Only Jesus.
>> >>
>> >> >� You can't teach old dogmatists new tricks.
>> >>
>> >> You can't fabricate what isn't there.
>> >>
>> >� Sure you can, the RCC fabricated numerous Traditions that weren't there
>> >in the beginning.
>>
>> Then where did they come from?
>>
>� From clever men who pretended to be holy.

Ok, it's clearly over your head.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Fri, 3 May 2013 19:53:29 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> *** Sure, he's all that - but if he was on our team we would be crying,
>> not laughing.

>Dude, Duke IS on our team!

>If you had a friend who was curious about Christianity
>in general, and Catholicism in particular, can you
>thank of a better deterrent than handing him a few
>dozen of Duke's posts to read? Even better than Chick
>tracts.

I get ALL of my material from the RCC.

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:30:38 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:28:45 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>> � Matthew 1:20 indicates that Joe married Mary.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Matthew 1:
>
>[18] ...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
>together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Espoused is NOT married. They hadn't had sex. She was pregnant.

>[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
>her a publick example...

>Then again, your reading comprehension is roughly on the same level as
>your ability to understand simple kinematics.

A ball on a string does NOT demonstrate 180-degree opposite direction tangential
vectors across the cg. No rotation. I gather you have never been around a
merry-go-round

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 17:28:46 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <64WdnXtKTJj91BnM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>> > On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:28:45 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >> � Matthew 1:20 indicates that Joe married Mary.
>> >
>> > Nope.
>>
>> Matthew 1:
>>
>> [18] ...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
>> together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
>>

>> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
>> her a publick example...
>>
>> Then again, your reading comprehension is roughly on the same level as
>> your ability to understand simple kinematics.
>

>� fair point LG.

But she can now teach you about rotation.

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 17:47:57 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:43:44 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>> � She was already married to Joe the carpenter. Is there no limit on the
>>> caca you make up Earl?
>>
>> No, she wasn't.
>
>Luke 2:4-5 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
>Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called
>Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be
>taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

Deut 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man
find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall
stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being
in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou
shalt put away evil from among you.

New International Version
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was
pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to
be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Espoused to become engaged (or vice verse) to become married. That is the
issue.

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 20:57:57 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>�RLMeasures wrote:
>> In article <IYidnW2tpvwZxhnM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

>> <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:43:44 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> � She was already married to Joe the carpenter. Is there no limit on the
>>>>> caca you make up Earl?
>>>>
>>>> No, she wasn't.
>>>
>>> Luke 2:4-5 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
>>> Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called
>>> Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be
>>> taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
>>

>> � thanks LG. Duke is like a loose canon.
>
>And once you've seen a canon running loose in a Baton Rouge park there's
>nothing else to do.

At least it's not a cannon.

[duke]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:31:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>In your poisoned world, to speak is to originate the words rather than just
>>repeat them.

>I pointed out that the quote you were tossing around and attributing
>to God was actually recorded as being uttered by Gabriel.
>You didn't respond by claiming Gabriel was speaking for God.

If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
his own?

You have a long way to go, silent.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
> only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
> his own?

It is difficult to attribute motives to fictional characters.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was
> pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to
> be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

But your claim is this "pledge to be married" has no legal binding,
making both of them in danger of being stoned for running around in a
co-habitating state.

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<0cf81cbd-a5eb-4a8b...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 7:14=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <0f1ae2fe-65b7-4cdd-b92c-a16b50f48...@aw7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> > nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 2, 5:21=3DA0pm, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > In article <vao5o854jufq10fp6qrdtco7rb44ut4...@4ax.com>,
> >
> > > > dreamerincol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:43:44 -0700, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wr=
> ote:
> >
> > > > > >In article <q8k4o81da2id3acon08gceaskmt6dn9...@4ax.com>, duke
> > > > > ><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:27:44 -0700, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures)=
> wro=3D
> > > te:
> >
> > > > > >> >In article <5612o8l6nt5hr1tmo9g04ogonpjjsv7...@4ax.com>, duke
> > > > > >> ><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:25:12 -0700, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasur=
> es) =3D
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >> >> > =3DA0So a 91 yr old guy could better defend against high=
> waymen
> > > > and thugs
> > > > > >> >> >> >than some young buck??
> >
> > > > > >> >> >> Viable escort.
> >
> > > > > >> >> > =3DA091 is well past viable.
> >
> > > > > >> >> That's why he was a good chaperon.
> >
> > > > > >> > =3DA0A good chaperon would have been able to defend. =3DA0A 91=
> yr old =3D
> > > likely
> > > > > >> >could not handle a 9 yr old attacker.
> >
> > > > > >> But young folks traveling alone, pregnant and unmarried, would b=
> e st=3D
> > > oned to
> > > > > >> death.
> >
> > > > > > =3DA0She was already married to Joe the carpenter. =3DA0Is there =
> no limit=3D
> > > =A0on the

> > > > > >caca you make up Earl?
> >

> > > ;
> > > > > Oh come on. Rhetorical questions NOT allowed.
> >
> > > > > *grin*
> >
>
>
> ;
> > > > ? There is nothing funny about Duke.
>
> ;
> > > Wait, what?
>
> ;
> > > I beg to differ: Dook is an entire Volkswagon full of
> > > clowns -- fright wigs, floppy shoes, seltzer bottles, and
> > > silly noses for all.
>
> ;
> > > Yes, he's *that* funny.
>
> ;

> > *** Sure, he's all that - but if he was on our team we would be crying,
> > not laughing.
>
> Dude, Duke IS on our team!

*** good point. Without Duke critics of "God's Holy Church" would SOL.

>
> If you had a friend who was curious about Christianity
> in general, and Catholicism in particular, can you
> thank of a better deterrent than handing him a few
> dozen of Duke's posts to read?

*** NO. My guess is that three of Duke's posts would turn the tide.

>Even better than Chick tracts.

*** easily. Duke is the best, "J" is a distant second, and PB comes in
third. The negative thing about Chick is that he obviously has an agenda
whereas Duke is a stunning example of what RC inculcation can do to the
mind.
>
> Me, I'm happy that my general impression of Christians,
> Catholic and otherwise, was not formed by those like
> Our Dook.
>
*** Duke would gladly have ridden with Innocent's army that murdered the
100,000.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> A ball on a string does NOT demonstrate 180-degree opposite direction tangential
> vectors across the cg. No rotation.

It rotates, but there is the addition motion of translation along two
axes, defined by the function sin() and cos() respectively. If the
string breaks, the circular translation stops, the ball takes on a
straight trajectory, but the angular momentum of its rotation is
conserved and it continues to rotate. If I were interviewing you for an
engineering position at NAVSEA you'd be off the station so fast your
chair would still be rotating.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <mpudnZtuY--kGhnM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> �RLMeasures wrote:
> > In article <IYidnW2tpvwZxhnM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> duke wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:43:44 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> � She was already married to Joe the carpenter. Is there no limit

on the
> >>>> caca you make up Earl?
> >>>

> >>> No, she wasn't.
> >>
> >> Luke 2:4-5 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of
> >> Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called
> >> Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be
> >> taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
> >
> > � thanks LG. Duke is like a loose canon.
>
> And once you've seen a canon running loose in a Baton Rouge park there's
> nothing else to do.

� With that much weight running loose it might be wise to climb a tree --
or just flee.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.

You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
it for you.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <i7g9o8h0o1rjb23da...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:49:41 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0305131...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
>
> >In article <8008o85kd5pnngplb...@4ax.com>, Attila
> ><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:17:28 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in
> >> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0305130...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qtr6o8tbchkd1pvjs...@4ax.com>, Attila
> >> ><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 02 May 2013 09:20:39 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in
> >> >> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0205130...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article
> >> >>
><5ea8777f-5d9a-49d2...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Father
> >> >> >Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On May 2, 11:45=A0am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 2 May 2013 06:19:12 -0700 (PDT), casey
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >On May 2, 10:22 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> [...]
> >> >> >> > >> The universe is exactly the size it must be for life
> >> >> >> > >> to exist at all.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >Otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >But if a god can just happen to exist with all those
> >> >> >> > >powers capable of creating life than why not a
> >> >> >> > >Universe with a set of laws the results in life?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > >You are just replacing one mystery with another.
> >> >> >> > >We know the Universe exists that doesn't require
> >> >> >> > >faith so why assume it doesn't have the very
> >> >> >> > >abilities you attribute to a god?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Why does the universe exist then?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why does there have to be a "why?"
> >> >> >
> >> >> >�� everything that exists has a why.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >�� ______
> >>
> >>
> >> ??
> >
> >�� "nonsense" isn't an arguement.
>
> It is an observation. The statement is nonsense. There is no
> requirement for everything that exists to have a reason for existing.
> The entire universe could be nothing more than an accident.

�� but accidents have a reason why they happened. For me the #1
unanswered question is what was the source of hydrogen that created the
Big Bang?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <dq0ao85tdodhf5krn...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:24:18 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nej7o81svlir99mau...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:41:12 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <27k4o8lfdbd8sdbe8...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:24:51 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Could be. But Mary is not mom except for Jesus.
> >> >> >> >� The name of the mother (Mary) is stated in Matthew 13.
> >> >> >> Only Jesus.
> >> >>
> >> >> >� You can't teach old dogmatists new tricks.
> >> >>
> >> >> You can't fabricate what isn't there.
> >> >>
> >> >� Sure you can, the RCC fabricated numerous Traditions that weren't there
> >> >in the beginning.
> >>
> >> Then where did they come from?
> >>
> >� From clever men who pretended to be holy.
>
> Ok, it's clearly over your head.
>

� "In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church."
(page 77, *A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion*, Fr. Joseph De
Harbe, S.J.. 1889)

[•RLMeasures]

In article <dc1ao8ps8posmd00i...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 17:28:46 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <64WdnXtKTJj91BnM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> ><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >
> >> duke wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 03 May 2013 09:28:45 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> • Matthew 1:20 indicates that Joe married Mary.
> >> >
> >> > Nope.
> >>
> >> Matthew 1:
> >>
> >> [18] ...When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
> >> together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
> >>
> >> [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
> >> her a publick example...
> >>
> >> Then again, your reading comprehension is roughly on the same level as
> >> your ability to understand simple kinematics.
> >
> >• fair point LG.
>
> But she can now teach you about rotation.
>

•_____

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 08:13:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 May 2013 19:31:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>In your poisoned world, to speak is to originate the words rather than just
>>>repeat them.
>
>>I pointed out that the quote you were tossing around and attributing
>>to God was actually recorded as being uttered by Gabriel.
>>You didn't respond by claiming Gabriel was speaking for God.
>
>If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>his own?

We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.

We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.

And, it's attributed to Gabriel, a fact that you -laughed- at when I
pointed it out.

"Gabriel speaking?? Haahaahaa.", you wrote.

You were wrong, Dook.

And, you've been trying to worm out of your stupidity ever since.

Neither does any of this have anything to do with your claim of Mary
being free of sin, which nobody said anywhere.

That claim is just more made up bullshit courtesy of the RCC.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <2P-dnUz-efmNhRjM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal

<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> duke wrote:
> > I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>
> You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
> it for you.

� however, it's definitely doing it for our team.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:47:24 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>> only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>> his own?

>It is difficult to attribute motives to fictional characters.

SWOOSH - right over your head.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:15:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>
>You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
>it for you.

My material requires audience intelligence.

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:09:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> A ball on a string does NOT demonstrate 180-degree opposite direction tangential
>> vectors across the cg. No rotation.
>
>It rotates, but there is the addition motion of translation along two
>axes, defined by the function sin() and cos() respectively. If the
>string breaks, the circular translation stops, the ball takes on a
>straight trajectory, but the angular momentum of its rotation is
>conserved and it continues to rotate. If I were interviewing you for an
>engineering position at NAVSEA you'd be off the station so fast your
>chair would still be rotating.

Earl has refused to tell us where he obtained his alleged degree in
engineering.

I suspect an interview with NASA might have gone well as he applied
for a job as a maintenance engineer.

My father hired a guy as a janitor and he insisted he was a
maintenance engineer. I still remember the day he asked where my dad
was and I said "Hanging from the rafters."
His head swiveled and he started to look up.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:09:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> A ball on a string does NOT demonstrate 180-degree opposite direction tangential
>> vectors across the cg. No rotation.
>
>It rotates,

No - no rotation.

>but there is the addition motion of translation along two
>axes, defined by the function sin() and cos() respectively. If the
>string breaks, the circular translation stops, the ball takes on a
>straight trajectory, but the angular momentum of its rotation is
>conserved and it continues to rotate.

It had no angular momentum around it's cg in the first place. It's no longer on
a string afterwards..

>If I were interviewing you for an
>engineering position at NAVSEA you'd be off the station so fast your
>chair would still be rotating.

I would have the job.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:54:12 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:

>> This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was
>> pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to
>> be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

>But your claim is this "pledge to be married" has no legal binding,
>making both of them in danger of being stoned for running around in a
>co-habitating state.

I make no claim other than what it says and what the culture says. A pregnant
and unmarried couple traveling alone is grounds for stoning. An elderly Joseph
solves that problem. I didn't make it up. It's one of the scenarios for the

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> I make no claim other than what it says and what the culture says. A pregnant
> and unmarried couple traveling alone is grounds for stoning. An elderly Joseph
> solves that problem. I didn't make it up. It's one of the scenarios for the
> issue.

What you have uncovered is simply yet another plot hole in the fictional
story of the Infancy Narrative. But the Bible itself punches a bigger
hole in the story when St. Matthew has Joseph immediately taking Mary
and Baby Jesus to Egypt to evade the soldiers of Herod, while St. Luke
has Mary doddling along with her purification ritual, then taking Jesus
to the temple in the heart of Herodville, "for it was written in the Law
of the Lord that every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy
to the Lord" yadda yadda yadda. Therefore, atheists have already
concluded there is no historical basis for this story. That you have
found even more problems with the narrative is of no interest whatsoever.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:47:24 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> >duke wrote:
>>> >>If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>>> >>only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>>> >>his own?
>> >It is difficult to attribute motives to fictional characters.
> SWOOSH - right over your head.

That was a bird, not Gabriel.

[linuxgal]

Virgil wrote:
> In article<mbg8o8llgjuupknts...@4ax.com>,
> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> > >>
>>> > >� Matthew 1:20 indicates that Joe married Mary.
>> >
>> >Nope.
> You mean that Jesus was a bastard?

Bastard is such a harsh term. You didn't get the memo. We say he was
an undocumented child.

[Smiler]

Except that it adds another pointer to the whole thing being a total
fiction. Duke IS on our side!

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 11:43:37 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:39:06 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> What racial slur?
>>
>> Are you going to claim that "grik" is not a racial slur, Dork?
>
> That's right. It's just a play on a word.
>

I fully expect Duke to start calling me "flip" any day now. Because
that's the kind of guy he is.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <fc5bo8tah3e4cp6v4...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> Not necessarily. There is no reason to expect everything is supported
> by a reason. It could be that something simply is, and nothing more
> than that.
>
> Why must that hydrogen have a source?

€€ Everything comes from something.

[linuxgal]

Dreamer In Colore wrote:
> Uranium decays at a specific rate, but nobody can determine the exact
> time that the radioactivity is shed. There is no why for that.

There is a why for that. The two-body problem and the restricted
three-body problem have exact solutions, but the general n-body problem
for n>2 has no exact solutions, due to complexity. It is related to the
way you can algebraically find the exact roots of quadratics and
quartics but not quintics or above. A Uranium nucleus is a 235 body
problem.

[casey]

On May 5, 9:10 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:24:44 -0400, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> in
> [...]
> >Well then, you don't believe that love exists?
>
> As an emotion residing in a single individual and having no physical
> existence, yes.  It is a characteristic found as a part of whatever it
> is that constitutes a human mind - basically an electro-chemical
> reaction.  It has no more actual existence than does a thought.

A thought is to the brain that walking is to the legs.


>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification as the only option.
>
> Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> slightest attention to it.
>
> Why should any religion be considered a foreign nation
> with Ambassadors and diplomatic immunity?
>
> Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
> guaranteed above average income for every person.
>
> You are more likely to by kicked to death than to be killed
> by a rifle or a shotgun in the US.

[Enkidu]

On 05/04/2013 11:29 AM, duke wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>>> >> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>> >
>> >You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
>> >it for you.
>
> My material requires audience intelligence.

Or alter boys. Nothing seems to inspire your clergy like a alter boy,
unless it's hideing abuse of an alter boy.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
- Susan B. Anthony

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:41:12 -0700,r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>> >In article<27k4o8lfdbd8sdbe8...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>> >
>>> >>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:24:51 -0700,r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> >> >>Could be. But Mary is not mom except for Jesus.
>>>>>> >> >> >• The name of the mother (Mary) is stated in Matthew 13.
>>>>> >> >>Only Jesus.
>>> >>
>>>> >> >• You can't teach old dogmatists new tricks.
>>> >>
>>> >>You can't fabricate what isn't there.
>>> >>
>> >• Sure you can, the RCC fabricated numerous Traditions that weren't there
>> >in the beginning.
> Then where did they come from?

A doctor with a flashlight will show us that.

[duke]

SWOOSH - right over your head also.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:15:49 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>
>You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
>it for you.

My source is the BEST.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 17:36:09 -0700, Enkidu <enk...@go.wy> wrote:

>On 05/04/2013 11:29 AM, duke wrote:
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> >> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>>> >
>>> >You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
>>> >it for you.
>>
>> My material requires audience intelligence.
>
>Or alter boys. Nothing seems to inspire your clergy like a alter boy,
>unless it's hideing abuse of an alter boy.

Crap showing up.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:43:43 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> I make no claim other than what it says and what the culture says. A pregnant
>> and unmarried couple traveling alone is grounds for stoning. An elderly Joseph
>> solves that problem. I didn't make it up. It's one of the scenarios for the
>> issue.
>
>What you have uncovered is simply yet another plot hole in the fictional
>story of the Infancy Narrative.

"Simply"!! Wow, don't that beat all. And I should believe you...........why?

>But the Bible itself punches a bigger
>hole in the story when St. Matthew has Joseph immediately taking Mary
>and Baby Jesus to Egypt to evade the soldiers of Herod, while St. Luke
>has Mary doddling along with her purification ritual, then taking Jesus
>to the temple in the heart of Herodville,

Gosh, you would think that the tv cameras would have helped avoid this situation
and so every book would address the exact same issue in great detail.

a. Matthew: Herod murdered all male children 2 years old and younger. I
expect that his watch battery had died and the supply 747 from Rome was running
really late. So he really didn't have a clue as to what was going on and when.
But after he died, Jesus and family came back.

b. Luke: Presentation of the Lord is circumcision/consecration to God and is
performed on the 8th day after birth. It's now Christian baptism at 8 weeks.
Now after returning from Egypt, Jesus was again seen in the temple at age 12
years.

It's interesting to note that Herod was supposed to have died in what is now
4BC. But his son, also Herod by name, took over. The actual birth of Jesus is
estimated to have a float of 10 years. Now if that 747 was on time, we could
have avoided all this confusion in actual facts. But gosh durn, the message is
still "GOD WITH US".

> "for it was written in the Law
>of the Lord that every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy
>to the Lord" yadda yadda yadda. Therefore, atheists have already
>concluded there is no historical basis for this story. That you have
>found even more problems with the narrative is of no interest whatsoever.

The average atheist is really, really an ignorant person.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 23:19:04 +0100, Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:43:43 -0800, linuxgal wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> I make no claim other than what it says and what the culture says. A
>>> pregnant and unmarried couple traveling alone is grounds for stoning.
>>> An elderly Joseph solves that problem. I didn't make it up. It's one
>>> of the scenarios for the issue.
>>
>> What you have uncovered is simply yet another plot hole in the fictional
>> story of the Infancy Narrative. But the Bible itself punches a bigger
>> hole in the story when St. Matthew has Joseph immediately taking Mary and
>> Baby Jesus to Egypt to evade the soldiers of Herod, while St. Luke has
>> Mary doddling along with her purification ritual, then taking Jesus to the
>> temple in the heart of Herodville, "for it was written in the Law of the
>> Lord that every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the
>> Lord" yadda yadda yadda. Therefore, atheists have already concluded there
>> is no historical basis for this story. That you have found even more
>> problems with the narrative is of no interest whatsoever.
>
>Except that it adds another pointer to the whole thing being a total
>fiction. Duke IS on our side!

Yeah, I enjoy making fun of you dummies.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 12:48:19 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 May 2013 06:47:24 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >duke wrote:
>>>> >>If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>>>> >>only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>>>> >>his own?
>>> >It is difficult to attribute motives to fictional characters.
>> SWOOSH - right over your head.
>
>That was a bird, not Gabriel.

And it crapped on your head.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:15:39 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>>only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>>his own?

>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.

Easy - God.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <jieco8dbucpt6da0t...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> On Sat, 04 May 2013 17:03:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in
> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0405131...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
>
> >> Not necessarily. There is no reason to expect everything is supported
> >> by a reason. It could be that something simply is, and nothing more
> >> than that.
> >>
> >> Why must that hydrogen have a source?
> >
> >�� Everything comes from something.
>

> Can you support that?

��� Does something ever come from nothing?

[Don Martin]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 19:17:43 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

A doctor with a flashlight in a vision once I saw:
He was an Abyssinian lad
In trousers of Glendower plaid
For tee time at Mount Aborah.

Could I revive within me
His flashlight's winsome dance,
To deep delight t'would win me,
And I'd never miss the chance

To flash that light upon the womb--
That darksome womb without a view:
Until the speculum's wide jaws
Brought a glimpse of worlds new.

Worlds new instead of night,
In which the womb should spy
That Abyssinian doctor's eye, and cry
"TURN OFF THAT GODDAMNED LIGHT!"

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Patrick]

Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>O -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> inwrote:
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>atrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>, Attila <<proc...@here.now>>>wrote:
>>>>>atrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> > wrote:
>>>>>>Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course, emotional states don't exist outside of the particular
>>>>>>>individual involved does it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>>>With verifiable evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>No one has yet proven the existence of an emotional state in the real
>>>>>world. In the absence of such evidence or proof the default position
>>>>>would be one that postulates it does not so exist.
>>>>>If you disagree present your evidence.
>>>>
>>>>But, you claimed that emotional states don't exist outside of the
>>>>particular >individual involved does it?
>>>>
>>>>Therfore you claim it does exist within an individual.
>>>>And I say: "Prove it."
>>>
>>>Aside from certain instrument readings which have been interpreted as
>>>detecting emotional states I cannot. But I never said I could.
>>>
>>>A claim something does not exist outside an individual does not mean a
>>>claim has been made that it does exist inside an individual. It may
>>>not exist in either place.

>>
>>Well then, you don't believe that love exists?
>
>As an emotion residing in a single individual and having no physical
>existence, yes. It is a characteristic found as a part of whatever it
>is that constitutes a human mind - basically an electro-chemical
>reaction. It has no more actual existence than does a thought.

Prove it.

[duke]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 15:58:27 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 11:43:37 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 06:39:06 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What racial slur?
>>>
>>> Are you going to claim that "grik" is not a racial slur, Dork?
>>
>> That's right. It's just a play on a word.
>>
>
>I fully expect Duke to start calling me "flip" any day now. Because
>that's the kind of guy he is.

Jdyke said she didn't mind. Do you mind "flip"? See what a nice guy I am. I
don't do that unless you approve of it, or you deserve it as grik does.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 07:44:59 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 11:15:39 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>If Jesus only revealed what the Father revealed to him, and if the Holy Spirit
>>>only revealed what Jesus revealed to him, why would the angel Gabriel speak on
>>>his own?
>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
>
>Easy - God.

You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.

It's attributed to Gabriel.

Neither does any of this have anything to do with your claim of Mary
being free of sin, which nobody said anywhere.

That claim is just more made up bullshit courtesy of the RCC.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:17:38 -0700, �RLMeasures wrote:

> In article <i7g9o8h0o1rjb23da...@4ax.com>, Attila

> <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:49:41 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in

>> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0305131...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8008o85kd5pnngplb...@4ax.com>, Attila

>> ><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 03 May 2013 07:17:28 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in

>> >> alt.abortion with message-id <r-0305130...@10.0.1.3> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <qtr6o8tbchkd1pvjs...@4ax.com>, Attila

>> >> ><<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Thu, 02 May 2013 09:20:39 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) in

Hydrogen didn't 'create' the big bang, as hydrogen didn't exist until
after the expansion occured.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <l7ldo815jfl7nrn01...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> I have no idea - I have not researched the origin of everything. Have
> you

• ______

[Mike Painter]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:54:47 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>I have no idea - I have not researched the origin of everything. Have

>you?

The proper answer as taught to the grade school crowd during catechism
lessons is simple.

Everything MUST have a cause except that not everything can have a
cause so we call that god.

So the Big Bang and god are synonymous terms at that point and none of
them ever get past that point.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <6kveo8h5tvvid6d3p...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> No response I see.

� correct. This is where the dead-end argument stops.

[PATRICK]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:53:47 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 May 2013 14:02:17 -0400, Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> in
>alt.abortion with message-id

>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
>
>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.

You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.

[casey]

On May 6, 7:57 pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> [...]

> Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> slightest attention to it.

If you really believe religious people are mental
defectives why don't you treat them the way you
might treat someone with a defective leg?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

If they quietly kept their faith to themselves, instead of demanding a
special place for their faith in society and continually trying to
enact it in to law, I would.

I'm not obligated to let someone with a defective leg to beat me with
their prosthetic.

[duke]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
>>Easy - God.
>You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.

What a numbnuts.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 13:40:18 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>>>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
>>>Easy - God.
>>You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.
>
>What a numbnuts.

I can't help it that you're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.

Only -you- have the power to do anything about that.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 07:07:36 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 May 2013 17:36:09 -0700, Enkidu <enk...@go.wy> wrote:
>
>>On 05/04/2013 11:29 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> >> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.
>>>> >
>>>> >You need to hire a better writer, duke, your standup routine isn't doing
>>>> >it for you.
>>>
>>> My material requires audience intelligence.
>>
>>Or alter boys. Nothing seems to inspire your clergy like a alter boy,
>>unless it's hideing abuse of an alter boy.
>
>Crap showing up.

You can wash it of your dinky, Dook.

Just use anti-bacterial soap.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Don Martin]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT), casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Probably because mental problems present behaviors that are much
greater pains in the arse than a limp.

[casey]

On May 7, 7:34 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT), casey

> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42-9dbb-a3e39d4ac...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>

> I would if they did not insist on pushing their mental defect on
> others, act as if it has any basis in reality, and then demand
> everyone accept their defect as actually being real.

But that is the point. For a mental defect it is real,
if they could accept it as being unreal they wouldn't
be a mental defect. You are grumpy because the
broken calculator keeps coming up with 2+2=5.
Unless of course you believe in the religious
concepts of mental defects being demons taking
over their bodies or that they are simply not
using their "free will".



> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification as the only option.

>
> Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> slightest attention to it.
>

> Why should any religion be considered a foreign nation
> with Ambassadors and diplomatic immunity?
>
> Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
> guaranteed above average income for every person.
>
> You are more likely to by kicked to death than to be killed
> by a rifle or a shotgun in the US.

[PATRICK]

Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:

>>>>Prove it.
>>>
>>>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
>>>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
>>>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
>>>
>>>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
>>>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.
>>
>>You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.
>

>It's all we have.

Then stop claiming something if you can't back it up with verifiable
evidence. Peer accepted, fully documented....

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

� Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental
illness can murder with applomb

[�RLMeasures]

In article <rdrfo898sl940p526...@6ax.com>,

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Mon, 6 May 2013 09:33:11 -0700 (PDT), casey
> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On May 6, 7:57�pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> >> human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> >> slightest attention to it.
> >
> >If you really believe religious people are mental
> >defectives why don't you treat them the way you
> >might treat someone with a defective leg?
>
> If they quietly kept their faith to themselves, instead of demanding a
> special place for their faith in society and continually trying to
> enact it in to law, I would.
>

�� Indeed. TBRCs are incorrigable in this area. Use a condom, burn in
RC Hell. Why the hell can't Catholics mind their own business?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <k7ufo8lj1pici4hod...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
> >>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
> >>Easy - God.
> >You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.
>
> What a numbnuts.
>

• congrats Otto.

[casey]

On May 7, 8:40 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42-9dbb-a3e39d4ac...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, casey

>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On May 6, 7:57=A0pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> > > human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> > > slightest attention to it.
>
> > If you really believe religious people are mental
> > defectives why don't you treat them the way you
> > might treat someone with a defective leg?
>
> •  Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental
> illness  can murder with applomb

A person with a defective leg can kill, most killing is
done by sane soldiers. Most people diagnosed with
a mental illness are harmless.

The notion that people kill because they are religious
is nonsense. They kill for other reasons even if they
give a religious reason for their killing. Their religion
is the excuse not the reason for their bad behavior.

Killing is mostly done to gain control over resources.
"Sane" people give defective reasons for killing and
that can include using religious beliefs.

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<72614871-fb46-493d...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On May 7, 8:40=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article

> > <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42-9dbb-a3e39d4ac...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, case=
> y
> >
> > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > On May 6, 7:57=3DA0pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> > > > human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> > > > slightest attention to it.
> >
> > > If you really believe religious people are mental
> > > defectives why don't you treat them the way you
> > > might treat someone with a defective leg?
> >

> > =95 =A0Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental
> > illness =A0can murder with applomb

>
> A person with a defective leg can kill, most killing is
> done by sane soldiers.

� Not here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

>Most people diagnosed with
> a mental illness are harmless.
>
> The notion that people kill because they are religious
> is nonsense.

� even Muslims?

> They kill for other reasons even if they
> give a religious reason for their killing. Their religion
> is the excuse not the reason for their bad behavior.
>
> Killing is mostly done to gain control over resources.
> "Sane" people give defective reasons for killing and
> that can include using religious beliefs.

� So you think Muslim suicide bombers do not kill for religious reasons?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k7ufo8lj1pici4hod...@4ax.com>,
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
> >>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
> >>Easy - God.
> >You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.
>
> What a numbnuts.

Oh, look, DiC, you're not the only one whose naughty bits dukie is
obsessed with. Are you jealous?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[casey]

On May 7, 10:18 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <72614871-fb46-493d-9da5-8b94e4ed9...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, casey

>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On May 7, 8:40=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42-9dbb-a3e39d4ac...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, case=
> > y
>
> > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > > On May 6, 7:57=3DA0pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> > > > > human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> > > > > slightest attention to it.
>
> > > > If you really believe religious people are mental
> > > > defectives why don't you treat them the way you
> > > > might treat someone with a defective leg?
>

> > > Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental

> > > illness can murder with applomb

>
> > A person with a defective leg can kill, most killing is
> > done by sane soldiers.
>
> Not here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

Most killings in America a crime related and suicide.
Crime is about getting other people's resources.

> >Most people diagnosed with
> > a mental illness are harmless.
>
> > The notion that people kill because they are religious
> > is nonsense.
>
> even Muslims?

Not all Muslims go around killing people. If you want
to know why they do so you need to understand the
real motives. Yes some of them have a mental illness
but most mobs are motivated the same way soccer
fans are motivated. It is a tribal thing combined with
a feeling the others have it better and are the cause
of them having it worse.

> > They kill for other reasons even if they
> > give a religious reason for their killing. Their religion
> > is the excuse not the reason for their bad behavior.
>
> > Killing is mostly done to gain control over resources.
> > "Sane" people give defective reasons for killing and
> > that can include using religious beliefs.
>
> So you think Muslim suicide bombers do not kill
> for religious reasons?

Suicide bombers are the result of a brain washing
techniques and it has no more to do with religion as
such than the actions of a Kamikaze pilot or anyone
that gives their life for America.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 12:05:00 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

Symptoms are evidence, rightard.

Who knew all you theists were really nihilists.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

"Symptoms" are evidence, rightard.

Until the advent of the electron microscope, we couldn't see the
influenza virus, but we sure as hell could detect evidence (symptoms)
of an influenza infection.

It's the same with emotion.

Measurements of electro-chemical activity doesn't definitively prove
that emotion exists, but it -is- evidence of something.

Proof is for mathematics. Science operates on the balance of
evidence.

Now, where is your evidence for God?

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<e2a016e9-bd96-44dd...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, casey

� have you read the Qur'an?

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:26:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <k7ufo8lj1pici4hod...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>> >>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
>> >>Easy - God.
>> >You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.
>>
>> What a numbnuts.
>
>
>Oh, look, DiC, you're not the only one whose naughty bits dukie is
>obsessed with. Are you jealous?

If I'm in the same company as Otto, I think I'm doing pretty well, no?

I don't do "jealous"... it's a colossal waste of time.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[casey]

On May 7, 1:21 pm, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article

> <e2a016e9-bd96-44dd-a341-2eae63153...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, casey

No I have not read the Qur'an?

[PATRICK]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:32:18 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
>>>>>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
>>>>>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
>>>>>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.
>>>>
>>>>You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.
>>>
>>>It's all we have.
>>
>>Then stop claiming something if you can't back it up with verifiable
>>evidence. Peer accepted, fully documented....
>
>"Symptoms" are evidence, rightard.
>
>Until the advent of the electron microscope, we couldn't see the
>influenza virus, but we sure as hell could detect evidence (symptoms)
>of an influenza infection.
>
>It's the same with emotion.

Oh?
So now you can claim you can SEE an emotion?
What does it look like?
Can you see and measure all emotions?
How do you measure.... love, grief, joy?
Are your measurements verifiable?
Are they repeatable on various subjects?

>Measurements of electro-chemical activity doesn't definitively prove
>that emotion exists, but it -is- evidence of something.

Maybe it measures acceptance of God?
Or maybe an illness of ADD?

>Proof is for mathematics. Science operates on the balance of
>evidence.
>Now, where is your evidence for God?

Measurements of electro-chemical activity

[PATRICK]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 23:23:26 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> in
>alt.abortion with message-id

>That is peer accepted and documented. If you want the details look
>them up yourself - there are limits to my ability to educate.

If you refuse to provide it yourself, you are useless.

[duke]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:02:44 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>Or alter boys. Nothing seems to inspire your clergy like a alter boy,
>>>unless it's hideing abuse of an alter boy.
>>
>>Crap showing up.
>
>You can wash it of your dinky, Dook.

How did you get in there?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <1ihho8dosveu6d0sg...@4ax.com>, Attila
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:

> Not to mention how almost all suicide bombers anywhere seem to be of
> the same religious cult. Simply a coincidence I am sure.

� According to the Qur'an, holy warriors are either rewarded with a
gaggle of cute, receptive boys in Paradise, or they receive 72 dropdead
gorgeous virgin brunettes. Whereas Christianity and Judaism condemn
homosexuality, Islam rewards gay guys with the very thing they value most
-- i.e., boy butt.

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<95fbd968-e4b2-43c2...@zo5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, casey
<jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On May 7, 1:21=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article

> > <e2a016e9-bd96-44dd-a341-2eae63153...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, case=

> y
> >
> > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > On May 7, 10:18 am, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > In article

> > > > <72614871-fb46-493d-9da5-8b94e4ed9...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, =
> casey
> >
> > > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > > > On May 7, 8:40=3DA0am, r...@somis.org (=3D95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> >
> > <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42-9dbb-a3e39d4ac...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, case=

> =3D
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > y
> >
> > > > > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 6, 7:57=3D3DA0pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
> > > > > > > > human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
> > > > > > > > slightest attention to it.
> >
> > > > > > > If you really believe religious people are mental
> > > > > > > defectives why don't you treat them the way you
> > > > > > > might treat someone with a defective leg?
> >
> > > > > > Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental
> > > > > > illness can murder with applomb
> >
> > > > > A person with a defective leg can kill, most killing is
> > > > > done by sane soldiers.
> >

> > > > =A0Not here in the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

> >
> > > Most killings in America a crime related and suicide.
> > > Crime is about getting other people's resources.
> >
> > > > >Most people diagnosed with
> > > > > a mental illness are harmless.
> >
> > > > > The notion that people kill because they are religious
> > > > > is nonsense.
> >

> > > > =A0even Muslims?

> >
> > > Not all Muslims go around killing people. If you want
> > > to know why they do so you need to understand the
> > > real motives. Yes some of them have a mental illness
> > > but most mobs are motivated the same way soccer
> > > fans are motivated. It is a tribal thing combined with
> > > a feeling the others have it better and are the cause
> > > of them having it worse.
> >
> > > > > They kill for other reasons even if they
> > > > > give a religious reason for their killing. Their religion
> > > > > is the excuse not the reason for their bad behavior.
> >
> > > > > Killing is mostly done to gain control over resources.
> > > > > "Sane" people give defective reasons for killing and
> > > > > that can include using religious beliefs.
> >

> > > > =A0So you think Muslim suicide bombers do not kill

> > > > for religious reasons?
> >
> > > Suicide bombers are the result of a brain washing
> > > techniques and it has no more to do with religion as
> > > such than the actions of a Kamikaze pilot or anyone
> > > that gives their life for America.
> >

> > =95 =A0have you read the Qur'an?

>
> No I have not read the Qur'an?

�� Many of the things in the Qur'an are trumped by Muslim traditions.

[Don Martin]

The older ones with a prune.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 06:58:04 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:02:44 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>Or alter boys. Nothing seems to inspire your clergy like a alter boy,
>>>>unless it's hideing abuse of an alter boy.
>>>
>>>Crap showing up.
>>
>>You can wash it of your dinky, Dook.
>
>How did you get in there?

Not me.

I'm not a Catholic.

I've never abused an alter boy, Dook.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.



>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:24:04 --0400, Don Martin
<drdon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>�RLMeasures <r...@somis.org> wrote:
>> In article
>> <06d2e2b3-ab22-4f42...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, casey
>> <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 6, 7:57=A0pm, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Religion is the worst monstrosity ever fostered upon the
>>>> human species. Only mental defectives would pay the
>>>> slightest attention to it.
>>>
>>> If you really believe religious people are mental
>>> defectives why don't you treat them the way you
>>> might treat someone with a defective leg?
>>
>> � Those with a defective leg do not kill whilst persons with mental
>> illness can murder with applomb
>
>The older ones with a prune.

Sir Tiddley Half Toasted Prune!

Or even Sir Angus of the Prune.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 06:39:02 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>

wrote:

>On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:32:18 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
>>>>>>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
>>>>>>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
>>>>>>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.
>>>>>
>>>>>You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.
>>>>
>>>>It's all we have.
>>>
>>>Then stop claiming something if you can't back it up with verifiable
>>>evidence. Peer accepted, fully documented....
>>
>>"Symptoms" are evidence, rightard.
>>
>>Until the advent of the electron microscope, we couldn't see the
>>influenza virus, but we sure as hell could detect evidence (symptoms)
>>of an influenza infection.
>>
>>It's the same with emotion.
>
>Oh?
>So now you can claim you can SEE an emotion?

I'm claiming that we can detect evidence of emotion.

We've multiple, independent chains of evidence.

>What does it look like?

Increased electro-chemical activity in various parts of the brain.

Facial expression.

Observing external physical activity.

>Can you see and measure all emotions?

Measure, yes.

>How do you measure.... love, grief, joy?

By monitoring electro-chemical activity in various parts of the brain.

Observing facial expression.

Observing external physical activity.

And, correlating it with reports of emotion from the test subjects.

>Are your measurements verifiable?

Yes.

>Are they repeatable on various subjects?

Yes.

>>Measurements of electro-chemical activity doesn't definitively prove
>>that emotion exists, but it -is- evidence of something.
>
>Maybe it measures acceptance of God?

Perhaps.

Do you have any correlation in that regard?

>Or maybe an illness of ADD?

Perhaps.

But, it's strongly correlated with reports of emotion in the test
subjects.

Balance of evidence and all that...

>>Proof is for mathematics. Science operates on the balance of
>>evidence.
>>Now, where is your evidence for God?
>
>Measurements of electro-chemical activity

That's possible.

Do you have any reason to think that's the case?

Has that electro-chemical activity been correlated with anything
that's not temporal?

Because, we've solid correlation between electro-chemical activity in
the brain and emotion.

Balance of evidence and all that, rightard...

Balance of evidence.

Who knew all you rightard theist were really nihilists...

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:26:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <k7ufo8lj1pici4hod...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 15:52:59 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>>We're not talking about who Gabriel was speaking for.
>> >>>We're talking about who the quote was attributed to.
>> >>Easy - God.
>> >You're a dirty, filthy liar, Dook.
>>
>> What a numbnuts.
>
>
>Oh, look, DiC, you're not the only one whose naughty bits dukie is
>obsessed with. Are you jealous?

[PATRICK]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>I'm claiming that we can detect evidence of emotion.
>We've multiple, independent chains of evidence.

Provide them.

>>How do you measure.... love, grief, joy?
>
>By monitoring electro-chemical activity in various parts of the brain.
>Observing facial expression.
>Observing external physical activity.
>And, correlating it with reports of emotion from the test subjects.

>>Maybe it measures acceptance of God?
>
>Perhaps.

Excellent.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 13:28:23 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.

You rightards think snipping points means they went away, when it
really means you've lost.

Surrender noted, rightard.

I win the point.

You are irrational.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Notice that Dook only seems to be interested in the "naughty bits" of
men?

With women, he's only interested in the position of their legs.

[casey]

On May 7, 8:39 pm, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:32:18 -0400, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbarker...@woh.rr.com>
> >wrote:

>
> >> Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Prove it.
>
> >>>>>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
> >>>>>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
> >>>>>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
>
> >>>>>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
> >>>>>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.
>
> >>>>You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.
>
> >>>It's all we have.
>
> >>Then stop claiming something if you can't back it up with verifiable
> >>evidence.  Peer accepted, fully documented....
>
> >"Symptoms" are evidence, rightard.
>
> >Until the advent of the electron microscope, we couldn't see the
> >influenza virus, but we sure as hell could detect evidence (symptoms)
> >of an influenza infection.
>
> >It's the same with emotion.
>
> Oh?
> So now you can claim you can SEE an emotion?

It is a behavior which feels like something.

> What does it look like?

What does dancing look like?

If you don't know what emotions look like
when a person has an emotion you must
be autistic.

Ask people who can see emotions to group
facial expressions according to the emotion
they can see on the face. If they all come
up with the same conclusion that should
be evidence as it would be for proving to
a color blind person that they can see color.

> Can you see and measure all emotions?

How can you see all types of dancing?

I think you are confusing what it feels like vs.
what it looks like to an external observer
and think the subject feeling of an emotion
is somehow magical although it correlates
100% with neural activity.

You sound like someone who asks what is
an apple? You are shown an apple and
respond with "what is an apple". It is just
weird beyond belief. You have a problem
if you don't understand and see emotions.

[RedDog]

On May 4, 12:50 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2013 19:53:29 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> ***  Sure, he's all that - but if he was on our team we would be crying,
> >> not laughing.
> >Dude, Duke IS on our team!
> >If you had a friend who was curious about Christianity
> >in general, and Catholicism in particular, can you
> >thank of a better deterrent than handing him a few
> >dozen of Duke's posts to read? Even better than Chick
> >tracts.
>
> I get ALL of my material from the RCC.

>
> The dukester, American - American
>
> ********************************************
> Repeal Obama
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

Says the proven shit-eater. LMAO! :-)

Proof of stupid lying faggot duke's shit fetish:

http://tinyurl.com/c7zecvy

[PATRICK]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 14:40:44 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Tue, 07 May 2013 13:28:23 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>I'm claiming that we can detect evidence of emotion.
>>>We've multiple, independent chains of evidence.
>>
>>Provide them.
>>
>>
>>>>How do you measure.... love, grief, joy?
>>>
>>>By monitoring electro-chemical activity in various parts of the brain.
>>>Observing facial expression.
>>>Observing external physical activity.
>>>And, correlating it with reports of emotion from the test subjects.
>>
>>
>>>>Maybe it measures acceptance of God?
>>>
>>>Perhaps.
>>
>>Excellent.
>
>Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
>to how much they snip.
>You rightards think snipping points means they went away, when it
>really means you've lost.
>Surrender noted, rightard.
>I win the point.
>You are irrational.

I'm not the one who made the statement. You did.

[PATRICK]

My point - since you came in late - is that you cannot always have
proof or evidence for everything that we all understand and take for
granted. If you cannot accept God without evidence, how can you
accept the myriad of other things that also don't have the type of
evidence that others demand?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <97mho8pnsk7t3ab97...@4ax.com>,

PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 22:32:18 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:36:55 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Attila <<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>Prove it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is only detectable by instrumentation involving the analysis of
> >>>>>brain activity unless you rely upon indirect evidence such as blood
> >>>>>pressure, and such indirect evidence can have other unrelated causes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Brain activity is an electro-chemical state involving one particular
> >>>>>brain and is not transferable to another brain by any known method.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are talking about symptoms, not evidence.
> >>>
> >>>It's all we have.
> >>
> >>Then stop claiming something if you can't back it up with verifiable
> >>evidence. Peer accepted, fully documented....
> >
> >"Symptoms" are evidence, rightard.
> >
> >Until the advent of the electron microscope, we couldn't see the
> >influenza virus, but we sure as hell could detect evidence (symptoms)
> >of an influenza infection.
> >
> >It's the same with emotion.
>
> Oh?
> So now you can claim you can SEE an emotion?

Yes.

> What does it look like?

Lit up bits of the brain.

> Can you see and measure all emotions?

Sure.

> How do you measure.... love, grief, joy?

By reading the brain scan.


> Are your measurements verifiable?

Absolutely.

> Are they repeatable on various subjects?

Absolutely.

> >Measurements of electro-chemical activity doesn't definitively prove
> >that emotion exists, but it -is- evidence of something.
>
> Maybe it measures acceptance of God?
> Or maybe an illness of ADD?
>
>
> >Proof is for mathematics. Science operates on the balance of
> >evidence.
> >Now, where is your evidence for God?
>
> Measurements of electro-chemical activity

What electro-chemical activity. If you're talking about the brain, then
all you're measuring is the belief in god; in no way is believing in god
evidence that any god exists.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden