They want to ARGUE not PROOFS of Christ.
Frankie Lee
Schermer,Carl Sagan...all these atheist folks are beneath me,very
shallow in their thoughts and ideas?
Their faults were astronomical huge,and they had never demonstrated
anything to be seen as near-intelligent.Their sugar coated words were
mostly very lame.
Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
What real live experiments are there out there?
1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
be saved.
The Christians had done it.If you want to have prove,you have to just
call on His name.We have made many phone calls in our life,and at the
other end ,there was no one.
What is it that is so enormously,gigantically so difficult to make a
spiritual "phone"call?The Lord God actually watches you in close
range.
Many scholars did a great job by showing reasons and rationales,and
historical evidences,and many information to explain why Jesus was
risen from the dead. By the way,it is solid and iron clad in the
realms of mere lectures,evidences,words,and human reasoning.
What I have offered as proofs,go way beyond mere talks and
lectures,and thesis.It is Experimentation.How to experience,and how to
get evidence directly.
When you call Him,He answers.
The whole foundation of the Christian Faith lies upon the resurrection
of Jesus Christ.If Christ is not risen from the dead,the Bible says;of
all men, we the Christians are the most miserable.
The Experimentation is reasonable.Rational--Christ is alive,so one can
call Him,right?
Not difficult.Not complicated.No arguments required.
Those who proofs of God's existence,it is now given.
Those who wanted to engage in the realms of reasons and
arguments,whether God exist;that is another issue.
Can we discuss by mere reasons and arguments,mere discussions,about
God's existence,**not on solid proofs by empirical observation and
real live proofs on God's existence?Of course, we can also.
There we go again,this is what the world are doing in debates,and so
forth.Chit and Chat...But if you want real proves,you should know by
now what to do ....EXPERIMENTATION.
AleXX
news:e746ac9d-7f41-4303...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The best "proofs" is to ignore all your sickening trash.
Frankie Lee
> "Frankie Lee" <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
***You must be sleeping in school most of the time.If I offer
Experimentation as Proofs,and you dare to call it sickening trash,what
do you think decent people would think of you?
You tried to make yourself as obnoxious,and as discreditable as
possible by your comments.What for?
By urging to ignore my posts,meaning to not having real solid
empirical evidence,so that the Truths cannot be verified.What fear?
SkyEyes
> What qualifies me to say Dawkings,Hitchen,Sam Harris,Micheal
> Schermer,Carl Sagan...all these atheist folks are beneath me,very
> shallow in their thoughts and ideas?
Absolutely *nothing* qualifies you to diss these men, all of whom are
scholars, unlike yourself.
> Their faults were astronomical huge,and they had never demonstrated
> anything to be seen as near-intelligent.Their sugar coated words were
> mostly very lame.
They make a lot more sense than you do.
> Many wanted the proves of God,
No, Stupid, we didn't ask for "proofs." We ask for *evidence*. And
you haven't got any.
>and some specify to me that it must be
> "empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
> be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
> first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
Frankie, you dumb shit, it's really very simple: *if* there's a god
and it interacts with the physical universe, it must leave traces.
What are they?
> What real live experiments are there out there?
What you have proposed is *not* an "experiement." What you suggest
requires a person to work themselves into a psychological state where
they are ready to believe. *That* means the "experiment" is *not*
objective.
>
> 1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
> be saved.
There's nothing to be saved *from*, Frankie.
> The Christians had done it.If you want to have prove,you have to just
> call on His name.We have made many phone calls in our life,and at the
> other end ,there was no one.
>
> What is it that is so enormously,gigantically so difficult to make a
> spiritual "phone"call?The Lord God actually watches you in close
> range.
Because it's talking to yourself. I grew up christian fundamentalist,
Frankie; I know how this works. Every religion relies on a person to
work himself/herself into a state of readiness to believe. Once
you're in that state, anything that happens can be interpreted as a
god interacting with you. It works *exactly* the same for the
practitioners of voodun and santeria, who believe they can be "ridden"
by their loas.
> Many scholars did a great job by showing reasons and rationales,and
> historical evidences,and many information to explain why Jesus was
> risen from the dead. By the way,it is solid and iron clad in the
> realms of mere lectures,evidences,words,and human reasoning.
Please get yourself in a good English class. I can't understand what
you are trying to say.
*If* you are trying to say that it's a historical fact that Jesus rose
from the dead, I'm sorry, no, it isn't. It isn't even an "historical
fact" that Jesus even existed.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
> What I have offered as proofs,go way beyond mere talks and
> lectures,and thesis.It is Experimentation.How to experience,and how to
> get evidence directly.
I'll tell you what: remember my boyfriend, the one who lost his legs
in Vietnam?
If his legs reappear, either instantaneously or by growing back, I'll
believe you. All *you* have to do is pray for it to happen.
>
> When you call Him,He answers.
Nope. You might think he answers *you*, but then, you believe in all
sorts of unevidenced things.
My ex-brother-in-law, who was schizophrenic, believed that Jesus told
him to become a pot dealer. I didn't believe *him*, either.
Religion and mental illness just have too many features in common.
And since I'm boringly sane, I have no interest in it.
> The whole foundation of the Christian Faith lies upon the resurrection
> of Jesus Christ.If Christ is not risen from the dead,the Bible says;of
> all men, we the Christians are the most miserable.
Which is pretty much what we consider you and all the other christers
to be: miserable.
>
> The Experimentation is reasonable.Rational--Christ is alive,so one can
> call Him,right?
No. Even if someone named Yeshua ("Jesus") lived 2000 years ago - and
there's *no* evidence that he did - he's long dead. He may be
"alive," but only in your head.
>
> Not difficult.Not complicated.No arguments required.
<Arte Johnson> But silly! Verrrrry silly! </Arte Johnson>
> Those who proofs of God's existence,it is now given.
No, they are not. You have failed miserably. You haven't provided
any evidence that a god exists; you've merely cajoled us to
participate in a very old and suspect psychological experiment.
> Those who wanted to engage in the realms of reasons and
> arguments,whether God exist;that is another issue.
Sorry. Most of us on here live in a world of reason. Reason is a
better thing to live by than irrationality and superstition, which is
what *you* are selling.
> Can we discuss by mere reasons and arguments,mere discussions,about
> God's existence,**not on solid proofs by empirical observation and
> real live proofs on God's existence?Of course, we can also.
Oh, feel free. But unless you can demonstrate, apart from biblical
references, that any god exists, I'm afraid you're going to come up
very, very short.
> There we go again,this is what the world are doing in debates,and so
> forth.Chit and Chat...But if you want real proves,you should know by
> now what to do ....EXPERIMENTATION.
What you propose is *not* real, authentic experimentation. You cannot
quantify the starting point or measure the results. It's a
psychological trick, and one that I'm all too familiar with.
Now, if my boyfriend's legs grow back, that would be a different
matter. *That* woudl be "evidence." You better get to work on that.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
David Canzi
Frankie Lee <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
>"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
>be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
>first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>
>What real live experiments are there out there?
>
>1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
>be saved.
A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
--
David Canzi
FRANKIE LEE
> On Nov 7, 7:54 pm, Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What qualifies me to say Dawkings,Hitchen,Sam Harris,Micheal
> > Schermer,Carl Sagan...all these atheist folks are beneath me,very
> > shallow in their thoughts and ideas?
>
> Absolutely *nothing* qualifies you to diss these men, all of whom are
> scholars, unlike yourself.
Me: I say they are fools.The Biblical writings already diss these
folks as "foolish".What about their flimsy arguments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Their faults were astronomical huge,and they had never demonstrated
> > anything to be seen as near-intelligent.Their sugar coated words were
> > mostly very lame.
>
> They make a lot more sense than you do.
***I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Many wanted the proves of God,
>
> No, Stupid, we didn't ask for "proofs." We ask for *evidence*. And
> you haven't got any.
***"Proofs and Evidence were words easily use interchangeably.A piece
of wood is also an evidence of a tree.A Cosmological world is an
evidence of God's existence,...its designs.
The problems are,one cherry pick what is evidence and what is not.I
expect to reason with old folks like you,unable to understand simple
things.That is why I have to slowly to work the way up,from the very
basic to the very complicated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >and some specify to me that it must be
> > "empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
> > be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
> > first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>
> Frankie, you dumb shit, it's really very simple: *if* there's a god
> and it interacts with the physical universe, it must leave traces.
> What are they?
***Traces?Everything you can see with your physical eyes,they are
traces.They are traces of God.Again,I say you want a convincing way to
tell you that the traces seem plausible or not,and not just Traces per
se.
-----------------------------------------------
>
> > What real live experiments are there out there?
>
> What you have proposed is *not* an "experiement." What you suggest
> requires a person to work themselves into a psychological state where
> they are ready to believe. *That* means the "experiment" is *not*
> objective.
Me: So,when any scientist enters any lab in our world today,doing
experimentation,so you can argue too,that they are putting their
Theory to test with bias and prejudiced,or they are not
objective,because they are ready to to believe their own theory?
I offer this test is the most objective ever known to mankind,and none
had done it in our world except from me and by me.
1,Do I know you?
2,Do I know all the folks out there?Who are they?
3,Do I conspire with them?
4,Was my methods irrational or unreasonable?
I am asking you to test yourself,not I test it myself for you!As I
have said pseudo-folks not allowed.
Your comments were most unreasonable,erratic and most foolish.
---------------------------------------------
>
> > 1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
> > be saved.
>
> There's nothing to be saved *from*, Frankie.
Me: Do you have sins inside of you?Have you done wrong to others?Or
has others done wrong to you?
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> > The Christians had done it.If you want to have prove,you have to just
> > call on His name.We have made many phone calls in our life,and at the
> > other end ,there was no one.
>
> > What is it that is so enormously,gigantically so difficult to make a
> > spiritual "phone"call?The Lord God actually watches you in close
> > range.
>
> Because it's talking to yourself. I grew up christian fundamentalist,
> Frankie; I know how this works. Every religion relies on a person to
> work himself/herself into a state of readiness to believe. Once
> you're in that state, anything that happens can be interpreted as a
> god interacting with you. It works *exactly* the same for the
> practitioners of voodun and santeria, who believe they can be "ridden"
> by their loas.
***The fundamentalist are very strict to lettering of the laws.All you
get are man-made laws.You mean all those people out there,of which I
don't know any of them,cannot decide for themselves,and need you to
tell them how to test?
All you need to show me is,my Experimentation is not rational or
reasonable,that is all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Many scholars did a great job by showing reasons and rationales,and
> > historical evidences,and many information to explain why Jesus was
> > risen from the dead. By the way,it is solid and iron clad in the
> > realms of mere lectures,evidences,words,and human reasoning.
>
> Please get yourself in a good English class. I can't understand what
> you are trying to say.
**Me: What I mean is,people just goes by chit-chat,void of one to one
encounters with the living Saviour.What I offer is,a real live
experience.
I mean,they go by Theology.Well reasoned,covered all the loopholes of
fallacious arguments,so that their words and reasons cannot be
faulted.
Their persuasion is by mean of Intellectual discourse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> *If* you are trying to say that it's a historical fact that Jesus rose
> from the dead, I'm sorry, no, it isn't. It isn't even an "historical
> fact" that Jesus even existed.
>
> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Me: That is why I offer extra-ordinary evidence.Go and experiment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > What I have offered as proofs,go way beyond mere talks and
> > lectures,and thesis.It is Experimentation.How to experience,and how to
> > get evidence directly.
>
> I'll tell you what: remember my boyfriend, the one who lost his legs
> in Vietnam?
>
> If his legs reappear, either instantaneously or by growing back, I'll
> believe you. All *you* have to do is pray for it to happen.
Me: While many of my fellows in Christendom would tell you it is very
difficult,but as for me,it is an easy thing.There is a price to pay
for such Miracles.I would have to get an Angel to bring a spare one
from Heaven,or ask God to personally do the Creation,vis vis the
creation moments of God.
In Azuza Street,those miracles happened.There is a backlash of such
miracles,if you know the Christian history.When Jesus raised Lazarus
from the dead,they seek to kill Him.
In Singapore,countless of miracles,of a different categories already
met with strict hindrances.Many are forbidden to get people into such
realms,because too many people are getting healed miraculously,and the
coffers of Hospitals are in danger of depletion.
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> > When you call Him,He answers.
>
> Nope. You might think he answers *you*, but then, you believe in all
> sorts of unevidenced things.
>
> My ex-brother-in-law, who was schizophrenic, believed that Jesus told
> him to become a pot dealer. I didn't believe *him*, either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> Religion and mental illness just have too many features in common.
> And since I'm boringly sane, I have no interest in it.
Me***You see,here you say you aren't interested,there you want proves
to get your boyfriend had his limbs restored?
What kind of frauds you are?
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> > The whole foundation of the Christian Faith lies upon the resurrection
> > of Jesus Christ.If Christ is not risen from the dead,the Bible says;of
> > all men, we the Christians are the most miserable.
>
> Which is pretty much what we consider you and all the other christers
> to be: miserablle.
Me: It can only happened if Jesus was not alive,or risen from the
dead,and not while He is now present,and He can see you in the face.
--------------------------------
> > The Experimentation is reasonable.Rational--Christ is alive,so one can
> > call Him,right?
>
> No. Even if someone named Yeshua ("Jesus") lived 2000 years ago - and
> there's *no* evidence that he did - he's long dead. He may be
> "alive," but only in your head.
Me: Again you speak nonsense.If it is just in head,that there is no
real proofs or evidence.Hello,do you know what you are saying or
affirming?
-------------------------------------------
>
> > Not difficult.Not complicated.No arguments required.
>
> <Arte Johnson> But silly! Verrrrry silly! </Arte Johnson>
>
> > Those who proofs of God's existence,it is now given.
>
> No, they are not. You have failed miserably. You haven't provided
> any evidence that a god exists; you've merely cajoled us to
> participate in a very old and suspect psychological experiment.
Me: A suspect psychological experiment?Are you saying the Founding
Fathers of USA participated in an old and unreal experiments?
Millions are readily available to testify you that it is not so.Check
with someone you can trust,in your area,and then see what they tell
you.Is that reasonable?
----------------------------------
> > Those who wanted to engage in the realms of reasons and
> > arguments,whether God exist;that is another issue.
>
> Sorry. Most of us on here live in a world of reason. Reason is a
> better thing to live by than irrationality and superstition, which is
> what *you* are selling.
***Reason is important.Experiments also is.
-----------------------------------------
>
> > Can we discuss by mere reasons and arguments,mere discussions,about
> > God's existence,**not on solid proofs by empirical observation and
> > real live proofs on God's existence?Of course, we can also.
>
> Oh, feel free. But unless you can demonstrate, apart from biblical
> references, that any god exists, I'm afraid you're going to come up
> very, very short.
>
> > There we go again,this is what the world are doing in debates,and so
> > forth.Chit and Chat...But if you want real proves,you should know by
> > now what to do ....EXPERIMENTATION.
>
> What you propose is *not* real, authentic experimentation. You cannot
> quantify the starting point or measure the results. It's a
> psychological trick, and one that I'm all too familiar with.
>
> Now, if my boyfriend's legs grow back, that would be a different
> matter. *That* woudl be "evidence." You better get to work on that.
***ON ONE HAND YOU RIDICULES THE POWER OF MIRACLES,ON THE OTHER HAND
YOU WANT THE PROVES.OR YOU ENJOY TO INSULT WITH NO REAL SINCERITY FOR
THE PROVES.So what are you?A fraud?
I watch Christians prayed hard for many to receive miracles,and
thousands of them saw the supernatural power of God,unexplained
phenomenon of miracles,just one Church alone.
If I am God,I wouldn't want to do those miracles to those unbelievers
just to convince them,where, after they were healed,they gone back to
their old lives of sin.
With so great miracles performed for them,they remain ungrateful and
unappreciative.
Frankie Lee
> In article <e746ac9d-7f41-4303-a51f-8af09f95e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
> >"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
> >be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
> >first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>
> >What real live experiments are there out there?
>
> >1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
> >be saved.
>
> A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
> before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>
> --
> David Canzi
A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
Me: Of course,by not knowing the results,or nobody can learn from
it,the experiments are lame.
Science without religion is lame.
Therefore,one who knows the results,get the results before one
dies,then that is true evidences,embodied all of the essence of
evidences,proofs....
tirebiter
> On Nov 8, 12:45 pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <e746ac9d-7f41-4303-a51f-8af09f95e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
> > >"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
> > >be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
> > >first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>
> > >What real live experiments are there out there?
>
> > >1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
> > >be saved.
>
> > A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
> > before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>
> > --
> > David Canzi
>
> ----------------
> A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
> before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>
basis and nobody should believe in them simply because other people
tell them to.
I guess that's solved.
---
a.a. #2273
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> What is it that is so enormously,gigantically so difficult to make a
> spiritual "phone"call?The lard gawd actually watches you in close
> range.
Nice try... only that we've been there, done that, and learned that the
number we called is not and has never been in service.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Olrik
Frankie Lee
***If you lied to them long enough and hard enough the probable
results could be obvious,just like you Atheists enjoy in wallowing in
sheer ignorance.
That is why,nobody is a fool to believe in Hitler after he lied about
his Christian Faith,only those who support Hitler would use his words
to support on what he said.We have the hindsight about Hitler.
Olrik
Hitler was a catholic.
Frankie Lee
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY
of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name
was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)
***When someone wrote that Nazareth exists,does that meant it exists
or non-exists?If one of today cannot find such a place,after 2000
years,what kind of deductions would you think is plausible?Nobody
wrote about it,except the Bible,so the biblical accounts is not
accurate?
Or,the Bible wrote it,so it must be accurate?
If one could not find it,the best they can offer to explain is-to
remain neutral but not to conclude that it does not exists.Going by
inference,that is in the realm which is known to be debatable,and
endless arguments.
The City of Galilee.Wow!The Bible is so accurate even had the City
Galilee,even till this day!
After 2000 years passed by,no history books or anyone can find places
like a town Bukit Purmei.Singapore is so well known how come there
wasn't any mentioned of Bukit Purmei?Moreover,Singapore is a very
small place.Surely one must have heard about it.
It was a place where the Muslim riots in Singapore also
happened,dramatically.
Anyone who uses such languages of deceits,from the jesusneverexisted
is so lame,but alas,there are fools who would rather believe a lie.
What do you think if Galilee was not mentioned?They would surely be
conned,right?Even the City of Galilee was written,they are already
fooled,what do you think of the rest?
Don't you marvel at God's wisdom?
Historians would normally gave details of big city,not of obscure
places;but the Bible dare to give meticulous mentioned.Any Historians
would just look at the major City,the Major thing.The details are
always very vague.The devils are in the details!!!!!
These folks prove a common sayings!
Olrik
> On Nov 8, 1:51 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
>
> And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel
There are no fucking angels.
Syd M.
And yet, it's YOU coming in here with hot air and stuffed ego, and
getting upset when we point out your lies.
> That is why,nobody is a fool to believe in Hitler after he lied about
> his Christian Faith,only those who support Hitler would use his words
> to support on what he said.We have the hindsight about Hitler.
Hitler, no matter how much you keep lying about him, was a Catholic.
Your lies will not change that.
PDW
Frankie Lee
***Just think.Hitler was a liar.He himself said if one lied too much
and too often,people would believe a lie--isn't it weird that so many
quote his untruthful words,his words where he affirmed
Christianity,now believing him and trusting him exactly like those
Germans then,to believe that he was a Catholic?
If he could fooled those people then surely he had you fooled
today,isn't it?The problems with people of blindness,like yourself
is,given hindsight to you,you still could be fooled.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
about it, made some stupid claims over it. But you have yet to properly
explain and describe this "experiment" that you say will prove god.
Put up, or shut the fuck up.
>
> You tried to make yourself as obnoxious,and as discreditable as
> possible by your comments.What for?
>
It's called pay back, bitch. You have been a discredited, detestable,
rude, ignorant, self absorbed, moron, since you started posting here.
And you have your head shoved so far up your ass, you don't even
realized how stupid you are.
>
> By urging to ignore my posts,meaning to not having real solid
> empirical evidence,so that the Truths cannot be verified.What fear?
>
Since you have no objective evidence to offer, shit for brains, your
posts are best torn to shreds, has they have been. But since you
continue to repeat the same lies, the time is coming where ignoring you
will pay out dividends beyond compare.
And when you have been shunned into the irrelevance you deserve, perhaps
then you will start to grow up and understand that you caused it yourself.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
BAAWA Knight Sir Karl of the Solaris Media
____________________________________________________________________
The Chief Instigator
Your sorry Usenet history implies that you don't have enough sense to riddle
your way through an open door, Freakie Lee.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
Free Lunch
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 8, 12:45�pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
>> In article <e746ac9d-7f41-4303-a51f-8af09f95e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Frankie Lee �<leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
>> >"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
>> >be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
>> >first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>>
>> >What real live experiments are there out there?
>>
>> >1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
>> >be saved.
>>
>> A very badly designed experiment. �You don't know the result
>> before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>>
>> --
>> David Canzi
>----------------
>A very badly designed experiment. You don't know the result
> before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>
>Me: Of course,by not knowing the results,or nobody can learn from
>it,the experiments are lame.
>Science without religion is lame.
How does any religion help anyone? How can you tell if any religion is
the correct one? How can you tell if your religion is the correct one?
>Therefore,one who knows the results,get the results before one
>dies,then that is true evidences,embodied all of the essence of
>evidences,proofs....
What results can you get? How do you get them?
So far, when asked for evidence, you have offered none, but here you are
claiming once again that you have 'evidences' and proofs. Why do you
tell us that you have such things but not produce them when asked? How
can we not conclude that you are lying to us when you make that
assertion?
Free Lunch
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 8, 1:23�ｿｽpm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 12:10�ｿｽam, Frankie Lee <leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 8, 12:45�ｿｽpm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <e746ac9d-7f41-4303-a51f-8af09f95e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > Frankie Lee �ｿｽ<leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
>> > > >"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
>> > > >be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
>> > > >first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>>
>> > > >What real live experiments are there out there?
>>
>> > > >1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
>> > > >be saved.
>>
>> > > A very badly designed experiment. �ｿｽYou don't know the result
>> > > before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > David Canzi
>>
>> > ----------------
>> > A very badly designed experiment. �ｿｽYou don't know the result
>> > �ｿｽbefore you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>>
>> So you openly admit the fables of heaven and hell have absolutely no
>> basis and nobody should believe in them simply because other people
>> tell them to.
>>
>> I guess that's solved.
>>
>> ---
>> a.a. #2273
>
>***If you lied to them long enough and hard enough the probable
>results could be obvious,just like you Atheists enjoy in wallowing in
>sheer ignorance.
>
>That is why,nobody is a fool to believe in Hitler after he lied about
>his Christian Faith,only those who support Hitler would use his words
>to support on what he said.We have the hindsight about Hitler.
I guess that is why I don't believe you when you claim to be a believer.
Free Lunch
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Nov 8, 1:51�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
>
>And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY
>of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name
>was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin�s name was Mary.
>(Luke1.26,27)
>
>***When someone wrote that Nazareth exists,does that meant it exists
>or non-exists?If one of today cannot find such a place,after 2000
>years,what kind of deductions would you think is plausible?Nobody
>wrote about it,except the Bible,so the biblical accounts is not
>accurate?
>
>Or,the Bible wrote it,so it must be accurate?
>
>If one could not find it,the best they can offer to explain is-to
>remain neutral but not to conclude that it does not exists.Going by
>inference,that is in the realm which is known to be debatable,and
>endless arguments.
>
>The City of Galilee.Wow!The Bible is so accurate even had the City
>Galilee,even till this day!
You need a new Bible Atlas. Galilee was not a city.
>After 2000 years passed by,no history books or anyone can find places
>like a town Bukit Purmei.Singapore is so well known how come there
>wasn't any mentioned of Bukit Purmei?Moreover,Singapore is a very
>small place.Surely one must have heard about it.
>It was a place where the Muslim riots in Singapore also
>happened,dramatically.
>
>Anyone who uses such languages of deceits,from the jesusneverexisted
>is so lame,but alas,there are fools who would rather believe a lie.
>
>What do you think if Galilee was not mentioned?They would surely be
>conned,right?Even the City of Galilee was written,they are already
>fooled,what do you think of the rest?
>
>Don't you marvel at God's wisdom?
>
>Historians would normally gave details of big city,not of obscure
>places;but the Bible dare to give meticulous mentioned.Any Historians
>would just look at the major City,the Major thing.The details are
>always very vague.The devils are in the details!!!!!
>These folks prove a common sayings!
Stop telling lies to us.
Les Hellawell
You are right. We should judge people by what they do not by what
they say they do.
>Hitler was a catholic.
As shown clearly when he and his Christian followers brough the
traditional catholic persecution of the jews to new heights of
barbarity. The Holy Inquisition and the Pope who instigated them
would have neen proud of him, a son of the church.
Htler was taught to hate jews by his local catholic clergy in
Brauau, Austria, a very religious nation in those days. It
would be interesting to know how proud his priest were
of Hitlers final solution to the ancient jewish problem.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Syd
As you yourself prove everytime you post.
--isn't it weird that so many
> quote his untruthful words,his words where he affirmed
> Christianity,now believing him and trusting him exactly like those
> Germans then,to believe that he was a Catholic?
>
And your lying. He was a Catholic.
> If he could fooled those people then surely he had you fooled
> today,isn't it?The problems with people of blindness,like yourself
> is,given hindsight to you,you still could be fooled.
And you are the chief one being fooled.
PDW
Steve Knight
<leea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>Can we discuss by mere reasons and arguments,mere discussions,about
>God's existence,**not on solid proofs by empirical observation and
>real live proofs on God's existence?Of course, we can also.
You don't seem to understand that most of the atheists you're
talking to are very knowledgeable about your bible and christianity.
What you don't quite get is, we understand everything you say. We
understand how completely convinced you are of there being a god and
all that. Plus, the 'evidence' you provide isn't valid. You have been
told that many times and have ignored repeated requests for proper
evidence.
The only conclusion is that you are not smart enough to understand
what evidence means or you are a liar.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
David Canzi
Frankie Lee <leea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 12:45�pm, dmca...@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:
>> In article
><e746ac9d-7f41-4303-a51f-8af09f95e...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Frankie Lee �<leeahk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Many wanted the proves of God,and some specify to me that it must be
>> >"empirical".Repeatable.Verifiable.Testable.They wanted the approach to
>> >be scientific,and the entire world's scientists would concur with me
>> >first of all,one must put it into Experimentation.
>>
>> >What real live experiments are there out there?
>>
>> >1,Whosoever shall called upon the name of the Lord Jesus,he/she shall
>> >be saved.
>>
>> A very badly designed experiment. �You don't know the result
>> before you die, and nobody can learn it from you after you die.
>
>it,the experiments are lame.
>Science without religion is lame.
>
>Therefore,one who knows the results,get the results before one
>dies,
You don't know whether you're saved or not until you actually
arrive in Heaven or Hell. None of the people you're trying
convince to believe will be able to learn where you end up,
though some will have a preference.
You propose as a "scientific" "experiment" to start believing
first, and then evidence will come. For most scientific facts and
scientific laws that we know today, we have historical knowledge
of a time when we didn't know them, and hadn't even imagined them.
Scientists didn't decide to believe that an electric current
produces a magnetic field, and then detect the magnetic field.
They detected the magnetic field around a current-carrying
wire first. They didn't decide to believe that there was a new
element (helium) in the sun, and then see its lines in the
sun's spectrum. They saw the spectral lines first.
Everything that we know can be discovered by somebody who doesn't
already know it. Anything that must be believed first before
evidence will appear is a fantasy.
--
David Canzi
Larry
8af09f...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> There we go again,this is what the world are doing in debates,and so
> forth.Chit and Chat...But if you want real proves,you should know by
> now what to do ....EXPERIMENTATION.
>
>
Name one person who was "saved". What's his name and phone number?
All the ones they told me were saved are dead....just like the rest of
them.
Nobody's ever going to be saved. Noone ever has been saved in the past...
It's all IMAGINARY....total nonsense.
--
Larry
Wakalukong
> What qualifies me to say Dawkings,Hitchen,Sam Harris,Micheal
> Schermer,Carl Sagan...all these atheist folks are beneath me,very
> shallow in their thoughts and ideas?
----------
So far you've done nothing more than farting, and this doesn't qualify
you to say anything about those gentlemen.
Wakalukong