Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Budikka Accepts "Samuel Harrigon"'s Debate Challenge
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Dec 26, 2011, 7:45:23 PM12/26/11
to
On Dec 25, 10:46 pm, Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to have an honest debate with Buddika666. It seems she is always challenging people here.
> Well I challenge her tonight. I want your atheist insight, Buddika. Lets roll.
Here's what you need to do to start the debate rolling:
1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
exists
2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
the only deity there is
3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
created the universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
not a figment of your imagination
5. Demonstrate with objective evidence that Jesus Christ is the
miracle-working son of this deity.
Should be a simple thing to do if you have an omnipotent god behind
you.
I await your objectively supported response.
Budikka
> I want to have an honest debate with Buddika666. It seems she is always challenging people here.
> Well I challenge her tonight. I want your atheist insight, Buddika. Lets roll.
Here's what you need to do to start the debate rolling:
1. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
exists
2. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
the only deity there is
3. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours
created the universe and life on Earth
4. Demonstrate with objective evidence that this deity of yours is
not a figment of your imagination
5. Demonstrate with objective evidence that Jesus Christ is the
miracle-working son of this deity.
Should be a simple thing to do if you have an omnipotent god behind
you.
I await your objectively supported response.
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 26, 2011, 8:15:08 PM12/26/11
to
On Dec 26, 11:30 am, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article
> <70c9f70d-b47f-43eb-82c7-492497ab5...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> 1. Debate consists of two teams taking opposing positions on any topic.
> "Team" can be a single person or group of people. Teams should be
> evenly balanced so that everyone has the opportunity to speak in the
> proper order. A free-for-all is not a debate; it is a melee.
>
> 2. One team takes the affirmative position, the other team takes the
> negative position.
>
> 3. Topic. A topic is enumerated. The topic is limited to a single
> statement such as, "The sky is blue." The topic requires the
> affirmative team to support the assertion ("The sky is blue"). The
> negative team is required to support an opposing position ("The sky is
> not blue.") The affirmative team has the burden of proof.
>
> 4. The speeches and speaking times are divided equally between the two
> teams.
>
> 5. Each team is permitted to make from one to three opening speeches,
> called constructive speeches. The affirmative team makes the first
> constructive speech, followed by the negative team, until all
> constructive speeches are complete. No rebuttal is permitted until all
> constructive speeches are complete.
>
> 6. After the completion of all constructive speeches, rebuttal begins.
> The negative team makes the first rebuttal speech, and rebuttal
> alternates affirmative, negative, affirmative, etc. (Thus, the
> affirmative team always gets the first and last word. This is designed
> to compensate for the affirmative team's burden of proof requirement.)
>
> 7. Definitions: During constructive speeches and rebuttals, the
> affirmative team has the responsibility to provide reasonable
> definitions of terms used in the topic or the debate ("Blue" must have
> a reasonable definition, and the definition must be accepted by the
> negative team. Trick definitions are not permitted, e.g. "Every color
> except blue is blue."). The negative team may challenge definitions,
> and the accepted outcome is judged by the strength of opposing
> arguments.
>
> 8. Burden of proof: The rule is simple, he who asserts must prove. The
> burden of proof begins with the affirmative team and is limited to the
> general assertion in the topic. However, the negative team may also
> make assertions in its constructive and rebuttal arguments that require
> them to assume the burden of proof.
>
> 9. Facts presented as arguments must be accurate and independently
> verifiable, e.g. "Blue light has an average wavelength of 475-500 nm."
> Facts that cannot be independently verified or are otherwise "fuzzy"
> ("The sky is infinitely high") are classed as opinions, and not
> generally regarded as supporting the burden of proof, although they are
> accepted as arguments.
>
> 10. Similarly, restatements or quotations of an opposing argument ("You
> said blue was 600 nm") must be accurate. Exact quotes are preferred.
> Restatements should not change the meaning of the original argument.
>
> 11. In general, no new constructive arguments may be presented during
> the rebuttal phase. That is, statements outside the scope of the
> original topic ("The night sky is black") are not allowed. With one
> exception, constructive arguments introduced during rebuttal are
> disregarded by the judge(s). That exception is if the rebuttal is the
> first opportunity to answer a direct question ("Isn't the night sky
> black?") and if these new arguments answer the question.
>
> 12. Refutation is different from rebuttal. Refutation includes the
> introduction of new evidence when used to counter a point raised by the
> opposition. Refutation can occur during any phase of the debate and is
> not limited to rebuttal.
>
> 13. Appeals can be made by either side for a variety of reasons, most
> of them concerning debate format. A team speaking out of turn may have
> its arguments rejected or disregarded by the judge(s), for example, if
> an objection is raised by the opposing team. In general, judges have
> the final say in whether or not to accept or reject an appeal.
>
> 14. Judging: The basic underlying principle of any debate is simple:
> The team doing the better debating is the winner. In some formal
> debates a point system is developed to indicate the winning team. These
> debates are rare and heavily regulated. Other debates rely on a simple
> consensus of the audience. The recent American political debates are a
> good example of the latter. "Winning" is often a matter of opinion but
> ultimately boils down to who has the better arguments. (Here, I
> suspect, one team will tire of the debate rather quickly and the other
> team will declare victory, deserved or not.)
>
> Concessions for Usenet debates:
>
> A single debate should be limited to a single thread. The subject line
> should state the affirmative position in twelve words or less,
> beginning with "Formal Debate: ".
>
> The first post should establish the rules, team members, and
> affirmative and negative positions, all of which are open to their own
> kind of debate. The rules I described above are taken from several
> online sources and are not written in stone. In fact, as I have
> learned, they vary considerably depending on type of debate and other
> factors. But any rules should be clearly established prior to
> beginning.
>
> Assuming we do not spend days deciding whether the table should be
> round or square, the second post should be by the affirmative team
> making a constructive argument, the third by the negative team making
> its constructive argument, as so on as described above.
>
> Unfortunately or not, Usenet is a world-wide forum. It is simply not
> possible to exclude others who wish to make statements in such a
> "debate." A workable solution would be to allow members of each team to
> use these statements in their own constructive or rebuttal arguments,
> otherwise they will be ignored by the judge(s), but each team must
> ACTIVELY state the arguments THEMSELVES and not rely on independent
> outbursts from the Usenet community as "support" for their positions.
>
> Spamming should be discouraged. For the purposes of a debate about
> religion and atheism, newsgroups on the atheist side should be limited
> to no more than two, and the same for the religious side. Care must be
> taken to trim replies and followups to relevant newsgroups. Deliberate
> spamming to off-topic newsgroups by either side subjects them to
> disqualification without appeal. Same for the peanut gallery.
>
> (I originally put this as #15 above but decided it belongs here
> instead.) Logical arguments: each team must agree to avoid logical
> arguments. There are any number of online references for these, but the
> most egregious of them is the Ad Hominem. As soon as one side
> degenerates into name-calling, comparing the other to Hitler, and
> profanity, they lose the debate. It's "Budikka" and "Rev. Harrigon,"
> not "Bud de bud de caca" and "Slime coated Zachy sock puppet." Count to
> 30 and think before hitting the "Post" button. You are representing
> everybody on your side, and it's not that difficult to act like adults,
> you know?
>
> Trim your replies. No need to include 2,000 lines of previous argument
> when responding to a single statement. We all have access to the
> preceding posts if we need to go back and look at them. Bandwidth isn't
> the issue, it's my 60-year-old eyes. Use your discretion.
>
> How do we declare a winner? Jeeze, you want me to think of EVERYTHING?
>
> -chib
>
> --
> Member of S.M.A.S.H.
> Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
These rules are fine by me, but Harrigon has yet to state an assertion
he will support. I'm not going to debate just any old meaningless
thing that pops into his mind. Since Harrigon seems bereft of a
topic, I've listed five things the theists are failing in (to my
mind), in a separate message to him posted before I read yours. These
same items (with the recent addition of #5) have been posted by me as
a challenge to theists for some considerable time with no adequate
response.
I've also changed the header to "Budikka Accepts "Samuel Harrigon"'s
Debate Challenge" but we can agree on a header and then keep that
header throughout the actual debate. I must insist that this debate
be posted to alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, not just
alt.atheism, because those three groups are where the overwhelming
majority of my challenges have been posted.
Since Harrigon has stated
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/c6507c65f46d0df3
That it's his express purpose to "convert some people for the Lord",
and in view of the season, if the topic needs to be narrowed down
somewhat, let's see if he'll argue in the affirmative something along
the lines of "Jesus Christ, Miracle Working Son of God, was a real
person", where 'Jesus Christ' and 'God' are defined as the main
characters from the Old and New Testaments in the Holy Bible, and
'real person' means there was an actual human who was the son of a
real god, born of an actual virgin, who performed the miracles
described in the NT., who was crucified, who actually *died*, and then
who came back to life in his original physical body.
Budikka
> In article
> <70c9f70d-b47f-43eb-82c7-492497ab5...@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to have an honest debate with Buddika666. It seems she is
> > always challenging people here.
> > Well I challenge her tonight.
> > I want your atheist insight, Buddika. Lets roll.
>
> Simplified debate rules:
> Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to have an honest debate with Buddika666. It seems she is
> > always challenging people here.
> > Well I challenge her tonight.
> > I want your atheist insight, Buddika. Lets roll.
>
>
> 1. Debate consists of two teams taking opposing positions on any topic.
> "Team" can be a single person or group of people. Teams should be
> evenly balanced so that everyone has the opportunity to speak in the
> proper order. A free-for-all is not a debate; it is a melee.
>
> 2. One team takes the affirmative position, the other team takes the
> negative position.
>
> 3. Topic. A topic is enumerated. The topic is limited to a single
> statement such as, "The sky is blue." The topic requires the
> affirmative team to support the assertion ("The sky is blue"). The
> negative team is required to support an opposing position ("The sky is
> not blue.") The affirmative team has the burden of proof.
>
> 4. The speeches and speaking times are divided equally between the two
> teams.
>
> 5. Each team is permitted to make from one to three opening speeches,
> called constructive speeches. The affirmative team makes the first
> constructive speech, followed by the negative team, until all
> constructive speeches are complete. No rebuttal is permitted until all
> constructive speeches are complete.
>
> 6. After the completion of all constructive speeches, rebuttal begins.
> The negative team makes the first rebuttal speech, and rebuttal
> alternates affirmative, negative, affirmative, etc. (Thus, the
> affirmative team always gets the first and last word. This is designed
> to compensate for the affirmative team's burden of proof requirement.)
>
> 7. Definitions: During constructive speeches and rebuttals, the
> affirmative team has the responsibility to provide reasonable
> definitions of terms used in the topic or the debate ("Blue" must have
> a reasonable definition, and the definition must be accepted by the
> negative team. Trick definitions are not permitted, e.g. "Every color
> except blue is blue."). The negative team may challenge definitions,
> and the accepted outcome is judged by the strength of opposing
> arguments.
>
> 8. Burden of proof: The rule is simple, he who asserts must prove. The
> burden of proof begins with the affirmative team and is limited to the
> general assertion in the topic. However, the negative team may also
> make assertions in its constructive and rebuttal arguments that require
> them to assume the burden of proof.
>
> 9. Facts presented as arguments must be accurate and independently
> verifiable, e.g. "Blue light has an average wavelength of 475-500 nm."
> Facts that cannot be independently verified or are otherwise "fuzzy"
> ("The sky is infinitely high") are classed as opinions, and not
> generally regarded as supporting the burden of proof, although they are
> accepted as arguments.
>
> 10. Similarly, restatements or quotations of an opposing argument ("You
> said blue was 600 nm") must be accurate. Exact quotes are preferred.
> Restatements should not change the meaning of the original argument.
>
> 11. In general, no new constructive arguments may be presented during
> the rebuttal phase. That is, statements outside the scope of the
> original topic ("The night sky is black") are not allowed. With one
> exception, constructive arguments introduced during rebuttal are
> disregarded by the judge(s). That exception is if the rebuttal is the
> first opportunity to answer a direct question ("Isn't the night sky
> black?") and if these new arguments answer the question.
>
> 12. Refutation is different from rebuttal. Refutation includes the
> introduction of new evidence when used to counter a point raised by the
> opposition. Refutation can occur during any phase of the debate and is
> not limited to rebuttal.
>
> 13. Appeals can be made by either side for a variety of reasons, most
> of them concerning debate format. A team speaking out of turn may have
> its arguments rejected or disregarded by the judge(s), for example, if
> an objection is raised by the opposing team. In general, judges have
> the final say in whether or not to accept or reject an appeal.
>
> 14. Judging: The basic underlying principle of any debate is simple:
> The team doing the better debating is the winner. In some formal
> debates a point system is developed to indicate the winning team. These
> debates are rare and heavily regulated. Other debates rely on a simple
> consensus of the audience. The recent American political debates are a
> good example of the latter. "Winning" is often a matter of opinion but
> ultimately boils down to who has the better arguments. (Here, I
> suspect, one team will tire of the debate rather quickly and the other
> team will declare victory, deserved or not.)
>
> Concessions for Usenet debates:
>
> A single debate should be limited to a single thread. The subject line
> should state the affirmative position in twelve words or less,
> beginning with "Formal Debate: ".
>
> The first post should establish the rules, team members, and
> affirmative and negative positions, all of which are open to their own
> kind of debate. The rules I described above are taken from several
> online sources and are not written in stone. In fact, as I have
> learned, they vary considerably depending on type of debate and other
> factors. But any rules should be clearly established prior to
> beginning.
>
> Assuming we do not spend days deciding whether the table should be
> round or square, the second post should be by the affirmative team
> making a constructive argument, the third by the negative team making
> its constructive argument, as so on as described above.
>
> Unfortunately or not, Usenet is a world-wide forum. It is simply not
> possible to exclude others who wish to make statements in such a
> "debate." A workable solution would be to allow members of each team to
> use these statements in their own constructive or rebuttal arguments,
> otherwise they will be ignored by the judge(s), but each team must
> ACTIVELY state the arguments THEMSELVES and not rely on independent
> outbursts from the Usenet community as "support" for their positions.
>
> Spamming should be discouraged. For the purposes of a debate about
> religion and atheism, newsgroups on the atheist side should be limited
> to no more than two, and the same for the religious side. Care must be
> taken to trim replies and followups to relevant newsgroups. Deliberate
> spamming to off-topic newsgroups by either side subjects them to
> disqualification without appeal. Same for the peanut gallery.
>
> (I originally put this as #15 above but decided it belongs here
> instead.) Logical arguments: each team must agree to avoid logical
> arguments. There are any number of online references for these, but the
> most egregious of them is the Ad Hominem. As soon as one side
> degenerates into name-calling, comparing the other to Hitler, and
> profanity, they lose the debate. It's "Budikka" and "Rev. Harrigon,"
> not "Bud de bud de caca" and "Slime coated Zachy sock puppet." Count to
> 30 and think before hitting the "Post" button. You are representing
> everybody on your side, and it's not that difficult to act like adults,
> you know?
>
> Trim your replies. No need to include 2,000 lines of previous argument
> when responding to a single statement. We all have access to the
> preceding posts if we need to go back and look at them. Bandwidth isn't
> the issue, it's my 60-year-old eyes. Use your discretion.
>
> How do we declare a winner? Jeeze, you want me to think of EVERYTHING?
>
> -chib
>
> --
> Member of S.M.A.S.H.
> Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
These rules are fine by me, but Harrigon has yet to state an assertion
he will support. I'm not going to debate just any old meaningless
thing that pops into his mind. Since Harrigon seems bereft of a
topic, I've listed five things the theists are failing in (to my
mind), in a separate message to him posted before I read yours. These
same items (with the recent addition of #5) have been posted by me as
a challenge to theists for some considerable time with no adequate
response.
I've also changed the header to "Budikka Accepts "Samuel Harrigon"'s
Debate Challenge" but we can agree on a header and then keep that
header throughout the actual debate. I must insist that this debate
be posted to alt.atheism, talk.atheism, alt.talk.creationism, not just
alt.atheism, because those three groups are where the overwhelming
majority of my challenges have been posted.
Since Harrigon has stated
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/c6507c65f46d0df3
That it's his express purpose to "convert some people for the Lord",
and in view of the season, if the topic needs to be narrowed down
somewhat, let's see if he'll argue in the affirmative something along
the lines of "Jesus Christ, Miracle Working Son of God, was a real
person", where 'Jesus Christ' and 'God' are defined as the main
characters from the Old and New Testaments in the Holy Bible, and
'real person' means there was an actual human who was the son of a
real god, born of an actual virgin, who performed the miracles
described in the NT., who was crucified, who actually *died*, and then
who came back to life in his original physical body.
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 27, 2011, 9:17:08 AM12/27/11
to
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #1
When asked what his academic qualifications were to set himself up as
judge and jury of the Theory of Evolution, Fled the Thread, thereby
proving himself a hypocrite.
http://tinyurl.com/3rf72jl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #2
Challenged on his 'missing links' LIE. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3um7gc4
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #3
Asked what positive scientific evidence he had which demonstrates that
the entire surface of the Earth was completely under water only about
4,300 years old as the Bible chronology in Luke indicates. Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/44c3q94
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #4
Asked if he had any positive scientific evidence which demonstrates
that the Earth and indeed the universe are only about 6,000 years old
as the Bible chronology in Luke indicates. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3d38lwe
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #5
Asked what professionally published positive scientific evidence there
is for a creator or for a creation. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3sya4pn
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #6
Asked what independent objective evidence there is for a creator or
for a creation, posted around the same time as the above. Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #7
Asked what intelligent rationale he could offer for a creator or for a
creation, posted around the same time as the above. Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #8
LIED that he posted 180 failures of evolution when he posted only a
handful, all of which were easily refuted. Didn't even *pretend* he
could support his claim! Instead, he Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3ueca9g
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #9
LIED that humans and apes do not have a common ancestry and when asked
for evidence and invited to debate it, he Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3doxezm
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #10
Invited to go toe-to-toe on the existence of this god of his. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3s6wwaf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #11
Invited to discuss unsupported claims he made about the coelacanth.
Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/44kxjxf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #12
Taken to task over LIES about Richard Dawkins. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3md8lbg
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #13
Called out on his LIE about evolution and invited to discuss it. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3q5g5v8
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #14
Called out on his LIE about Jack Kevorkian's whereabouts. Hell? Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3tw8pja
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #15
Called out on his LIE about convicted criminal Garcia's whereabouts.
Hell? Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/69z2wex
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #16
Called out on his LIE about the Peppered moth, Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3j9cy7b
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #17
Invited to discuss his knowledge of the Bible. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3pfrg53
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #18
Invited to discuss his LIE about the odds of abiogenesis and
evolution. Fled the thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3v5x4or
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #19
Offered a discussion of his shameful LIE about anti-semitism. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3shfato
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #20
LIES about Charles Darwin's purported racism were exposed. Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3c8mele
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #21
Invited you to define 'Evolution' so that we could discuss it
intelligently. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3grr2tm
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #22
Made several statements on the reliability of the Bible and when
challenged to support them Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3vc4v8o
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #23
LIED about what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye and when
taken to task on this, Fled the Thread:
http://tinyurl.com/3mp9fbs
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #24
We set LiarBoi Loirbaj straight on abiogenesis after he accused us of
making the claims that Joseki (whom he's directly and repeatedly
supported) was making, he FLED THE THREAD:
http://tinyurl.com/3mhzezl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #25
Challenged on his 'billions of fossils' LIE. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3ce9g8j
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #26
Challenged on Jesus Christ. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/6kck7b5
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #27
Washed out in the Noahic flood. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4xo7k7v
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #28
Challenged on his Rick Perry LIES. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3w2rkhu
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #29
Big Bang Scares LiarBoi Loirbaj! Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4xy9hhj
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #30
Liarboi's Junk Shrivels Away! Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3mb6xts
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #31
Selfish Genes are More Generous Than Skinflint LiarBoi! Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4yh4nyh
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #32
Why species 'A' doesn't become extinct automatically after giving rise
to species 'B'. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3t2l3qf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #33
The Definition of Speciation. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3f7m488
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #34
LIED that there was a "mountain of evidence" disproving evolution.
Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2jtqg
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #35
Didn't dare set foot in a thread which pointed out what a fraud he was
when he talks about Stephen Jay Gould and the visibility of genes to
evolution
http://tinyurl.com/3k8upef
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #36
Ran from his virus lie.
http://tinyurl.com/3om8ps5
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #37
When his lIE about scientists skeptical of Evolution was exposed,
LiarBoi Loirbaj Fled the Thread!
http://tinyurl.com/3c6kufl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #38
Radiometric dating. Fled the thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3gwzkhy
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #39
After having been bitten by Darwin's finches, he flew the coop!
http://tinyurl.com/6b7sm9o
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #40
Offered a debate on the evidence for evolution, LiarBoi Loirbaj
prformed the amazing feat of running up the white flag.
http://tinyurl.com/3lgbdo3
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #41
Talk about fruit and watch LiarBoi fly!
http://tinyurl.com/3gvhqq4
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #42
Offered the chance to discuss transitional fossils, LiarBoi Loirbaj
transitioned into a chicken
http://tinyurl.com/3fq8omp
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #43
Asked to support his claim that a god made men and women, Liarboi
Loirbaj Ran Away!
http://tinyurl.com/43m6exa
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #44
Asked Liarboi to offer his evidence for a god creating the universe.
Liarboi proves his head is move of a vacuum than space is!
http://tinyurl.com/3twjs48
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #45
Challenged on his admission that he lied about Adam & Eve and a young-
Earth, LiarBoi ran away!
http://tinyurl.com/3pabgsu
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #46
LiarBoi unintelligently designed a lie and then ran away
http://tinyurl.com/3p75lhd
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #47
LiarBoi says one thing in one message, contradicts himself in another,
the runs away when challenged.
http://tinyurl.com/3bflqkr
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #48
Given a chance to discuss design, LiarBoi creatively exited the
thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3oplwuw
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #49
Offered a chance to discuss his lack of guts, spine, and original
thought, and why he has a pipe stuck up his ass, LiarBoi slithered
away.
http://tinyurl.com/3mszdd6
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #50
Offerd a chance to discuss the "concilience [sic] of science, math,
and physics: a Creating Intelligent God" Liarboi Fled the Thread
http://tinyurl.com/3boy8ae
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #51
http://tinyurl.com/3hwywdl
Flood debate was a washout - LiarBoi Loirbaj the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #52
http://tinyurl.com/7yyx83c
Challenged to debate atheist knowledge v. theist knowledge, LiarBoi
Loirbaj the Loonbag admitted he knows nothing and Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #53
http://tinyurl.com/8yobgg4
Challenged on his lies about Richard Dawkins, LiarBoi Loirbaj the
Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #54
http://tinyurl.com/6wk79as
Challenged on his gullible claims that I'd posted a clearly spoofed
insult to gays, LiarBoi Loirbaj the Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #55
http://tinyurl.com/7d2s93z
Offered a second chance to debate Jesus, Liarboi the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #56
http://tinyurl.com/7az9uw6
Offered the chance to debate the efficacy of prayer, LiarBoi the
Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #57
http://tinyurl.com/6v6dhy6
Offered the chance to defend his claims that there's a heaven, LiarBoi
the Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #58
http://tinyurl.com/6wyp6se
Offered a third chance to debate Jesus, Liarboi the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #59
http://tinyurl.com/c47efyr
LiarBoi Loirbaj used his Flee Will! lol!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #60
http://tinyurl.com/7oq9q7d
Challenged to support his evil characterization of atheists, LiarBoi
the Loonbag openly admitted he had no cv to qualify him to make such a
judgment and then Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #61
http://tinyurl.com/87rrvtf
Challenged to debate the true meaning of Winter Solstice, Liarboi the
Loonbag froze!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #62
http://tinyurl.com/7mxogt6
Challenged on intelligent design, Liarboi Loirbaj the Loonbag
intelligently Designed an exit from the thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #63
http://tinyurl.com/7axbzsu
Challenged to discuss eovlution, Loonbag the Loinbra evolved into a
chicken!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #64
http://tinyurl.com/7j47ofs
Budikka offered no challenge whatsoever, but cowardly Loirbaj
preemptively ran away! This is the best one ever!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #65
http://tinyurl.com/7xld5j7
Challenged on his lie about what Darwin said about bears and whales,
Liarboi Loirbaj got all bearish and Fled the Thread!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #66
http://tinyurl.com/77s8om8
Challenged to discuss intercessory prayer failure, LiarBoj the Loonbag
didn't have a prayer!
Budikka
When asked what his academic qualifications were to set himself up as
judge and jury of the Theory of Evolution, Fled the Thread, thereby
proving himself a hypocrite.
http://tinyurl.com/3rf72jl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #2
Challenged on his 'missing links' LIE. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3um7gc4
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #3
Asked what positive scientific evidence he had which demonstrates that
the entire surface of the Earth was completely under water only about
4,300 years old as the Bible chronology in Luke indicates. Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/44c3q94
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #4
Asked if he had any positive scientific evidence which demonstrates
that the Earth and indeed the universe are only about 6,000 years old
as the Bible chronology in Luke indicates. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3d38lwe
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #5
Asked what professionally published positive scientific evidence there
is for a creator or for a creation. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3sya4pn
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #6
Asked what independent objective evidence there is for a creator or
for a creation, posted around the same time as the above. Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #7
Asked what intelligent rationale he could offer for a creator or for a
creation, posted around the same time as the above. Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #8
LIED that he posted 180 failures of evolution when he posted only a
handful, all of which were easily refuted. Didn't even *pretend* he
could support his claim! Instead, he Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3ueca9g
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #9
LIED that humans and apes do not have a common ancestry and when asked
for evidence and invited to debate it, he Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3doxezm
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #10
Invited to go toe-to-toe on the existence of this god of his. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3s6wwaf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #11
Invited to discuss unsupported claims he made about the coelacanth.
Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/44kxjxf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #12
Taken to task over LIES about Richard Dawkins. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3md8lbg
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #13
Called out on his LIE about evolution and invited to discuss it. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3q5g5v8
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #14
Called out on his LIE about Jack Kevorkian's whereabouts. Hell? Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3tw8pja
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #15
Called out on his LIE about convicted criminal Garcia's whereabouts.
Hell? Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/69z2wex
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #16
Called out on his LIE about the Peppered moth, Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3j9cy7b
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #17
Invited to discuss his knowledge of the Bible. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3pfrg53
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #18
Invited to discuss his LIE about the odds of abiogenesis and
evolution. Fled the thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3v5x4or
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #19
Offered a discussion of his shameful LIE about anti-semitism. Fled
the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3shfato
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #20
LIES about Charles Darwin's purported racism were exposed. Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3c8mele
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #21
Invited you to define 'Evolution' so that we could discuss it
intelligently. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3grr2tm
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #22
Made several statements on the reliability of the Bible and when
challenged to support them Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3vc4v8o
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #23
LIED about what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye and when
taken to task on this, Fled the Thread:
http://tinyurl.com/3mp9fbs
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #24
We set LiarBoi Loirbaj straight on abiogenesis after he accused us of
making the claims that Joseki (whom he's directly and repeatedly
supported) was making, he FLED THE THREAD:
http://tinyurl.com/3mhzezl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #25
Challenged on his 'billions of fossils' LIE. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3ce9g8j
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #26
Challenged on Jesus Christ. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/6kck7b5
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #27
Washed out in the Noahic flood. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4xo7k7v
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #28
Challenged on his Rick Perry LIES. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3w2rkhu
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #29
Big Bang Scares LiarBoi Loirbaj! Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4xy9hhj
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #30
Liarboi's Junk Shrivels Away! Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3mb6xts
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #31
Selfish Genes are More Generous Than Skinflint LiarBoi! Fled the
Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/4yh4nyh
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #32
Why species 'A' doesn't become extinct automatically after giving rise
to species 'B'. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3t2l3qf
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #33
The Definition of Speciation. Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3f7m488
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #34
LIED that there was a "mountain of evidence" disproving evolution.
Fled the Thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2jtqg
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #35
Didn't dare set foot in a thread which pointed out what a fraud he was
when he talks about Stephen Jay Gould and the visibility of genes to
evolution
http://tinyurl.com/3k8upef
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #36
Ran from his virus lie.
http://tinyurl.com/3om8ps5
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #37
When his lIE about scientists skeptical of Evolution was exposed,
LiarBoi Loirbaj Fled the Thread!
http://tinyurl.com/3c6kufl
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #38
Radiometric dating. Fled the thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3gwzkhy
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #39
After having been bitten by Darwin's finches, he flew the coop!
http://tinyurl.com/6b7sm9o
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #40
Offered a debate on the evidence for evolution, LiarBoi Loirbaj
prformed the amazing feat of running up the white flag.
http://tinyurl.com/3lgbdo3
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #41
Talk about fruit and watch LiarBoi fly!
http://tinyurl.com/3gvhqq4
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #42
Offered the chance to discuss transitional fossils, LiarBoi Loirbaj
transitioned into a chicken
http://tinyurl.com/3fq8omp
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #43
Asked to support his claim that a god made men and women, Liarboi
Loirbaj Ran Away!
http://tinyurl.com/43m6exa
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #44
Asked Liarboi to offer his evidence for a god creating the universe.
Liarboi proves his head is move of a vacuum than space is!
http://tinyurl.com/3twjs48
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #45
Challenged on his admission that he lied about Adam & Eve and a young-
Earth, LiarBoi ran away!
http://tinyurl.com/3pabgsu
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #46
LiarBoi unintelligently designed a lie and then ran away
http://tinyurl.com/3p75lhd
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #47
LiarBoi says one thing in one message, contradicts himself in another,
the runs away when challenged.
http://tinyurl.com/3bflqkr
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #48
Given a chance to discuss design, LiarBoi creatively exited the
thread.
http://tinyurl.com/3oplwuw
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #49
Offered a chance to discuss his lack of guts, spine, and original
thought, and why he has a pipe stuck up his ass, LiarBoi slithered
away.
http://tinyurl.com/3mszdd6
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #50
Offerd a chance to discuss the "concilience [sic] of science, math,
and physics: a Creating Intelligent God" Liarboi Fled the Thread
http://tinyurl.com/3boy8ae
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #51
http://tinyurl.com/3hwywdl
Flood debate was a washout - LiarBoi Loirbaj the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #52
http://tinyurl.com/7yyx83c
Challenged to debate atheist knowledge v. theist knowledge, LiarBoi
Loirbaj the Loonbag admitted he knows nothing and Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #53
http://tinyurl.com/8yobgg4
Challenged on his lies about Richard Dawkins, LiarBoi Loirbaj the
Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #54
http://tinyurl.com/6wk79as
Challenged on his gullible claims that I'd posted a clearly spoofed
insult to gays, LiarBoi Loirbaj the Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #55
http://tinyurl.com/7d2s93z
Offered a second chance to debate Jesus, Liarboi the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #56
http://tinyurl.com/7az9uw6
Offered the chance to debate the efficacy of prayer, LiarBoi the
Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #57
http://tinyurl.com/6v6dhy6
Offered the chance to defend his claims that there's a heaven, LiarBoi
the Loonbag Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #58
http://tinyurl.com/6wyp6se
Offered a third chance to debate Jesus, Liarboi the Loonbag Fled the
Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #59
http://tinyurl.com/c47efyr
LiarBoi Loirbaj used his Flee Will! lol!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #60
http://tinyurl.com/7oq9q7d
Challenged to support his evil characterization of atheists, LiarBoi
the Loonbag openly admitted he had no cv to qualify him to make such a
judgment and then Fled the Thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #61
http://tinyurl.com/87rrvtf
Challenged to debate the true meaning of Winter Solstice, Liarboi the
Loonbag froze!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #62
http://tinyurl.com/7mxogt6
Challenged on intelligent design, Liarboi Loirbaj the Loonbag
intelligently Designed an exit from the thread.
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #63
http://tinyurl.com/7axbzsu
Challenged to discuss eovlution, Loonbag the Loinbra evolved into a
chicken!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #64
http://tinyurl.com/7j47ofs
Budikka offered no challenge whatsoever, but cowardly Loirbaj
preemptively ran away! This is the best one ever!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #65
http://tinyurl.com/7xld5j7
Challenged on his lie about what Darwin said about bears and whales,
Liarboi Loirbaj got all bearish and Fled the Thread!
LiarBoi Loirbaj Cowardice #66
http://tinyurl.com/77s8om8
Challenged to discuss intercessory prayer failure, LiarBoj the Loonbag
didn't have a prayer!
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 27, 2011, 11:19:59 PM12/27/11
to
>
> Rev. Samuel Harrigon
> -Good Old Gospel Ship Church
You claim you want to get this show on the road but you've been a no-
show since yesterday afternoon. Do you want to debate or not? if so,
do you accept my topic suggested in the fifth message in this thread?
Budikka
Zacharias Mulletstein
Dec 28, 2011, 12:46:35 AM12/28/11
to
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:465e232a-589e-4942...@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
outside of Usenet, unlike you pop athiests? And the fact that he hasn't
responded and I have is undeniable proof that we are not the same person.
Seriously, I'm not Harrigon. And I'm not Virgil or John Baker. And I'm not
gay.
--
I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
Jesus Christ.
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2011, 10:53:15 AM12/28/11
to
On Dec 27, 11:46 pm, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Apparently not, since he issued this challenge on Xmas day demanding
that we get started right there and then. Then he followed up the
next day, but as soon as I accepted, he quit posting.
Not that *you* would grasp this, but it doesn't take a genius to
figure it out - not when this precise pattern of behavior has been
seen repeatedly from Usenet theists.
Budikka
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
that we get started right there and then. Then he followed up the
next day, but as soon as I accepted, he quit posting.
Not that *you* would grasp this, but it doesn't take a genius to
figure it out - not when this precise pattern of behavior has been
seen repeatedly from Usenet theists.
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 28, 2011, 3:51:52 PM12/28/11
to
On Dec 28, 10:08 am, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2011.12.28.12.23...@gmx.at>, Florian Kutscherauer
>
> <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > chibiabos wrote:
> > > Simplified debate rules:
>
> > > [way too long to repost, see his article]
>
> > Is that how you debate in High School? Do you actually think that
> > anybody will remember those rules when shit starts flying?
>
> Of course not. "Debating" in Usenet is like baking a cake by throwing
> flour and eggs at the wall.
>
>
>
> > No plan survives first contact with the enemy! --- Helmuth von Moltke
>
> > Your idea is nice, but there is a problem: there is no independent party
> > that can enforce those rules. The kind of debate you are suggesting
> > requires a jury or judge to make sure the rules are being followed, but
> > without that, well, there are no rules.
>
> My post was intended to be more off-putting than to corral the guilty.
> The rules of debate are numerous and onerous, so I always laugh when
> someone proposes a "debate" on Usenet. There isn't a snowball's chance
> that it will be fair or reasonably structured, let alone judged
> impartially.
You are both of you completely missing the point. The point is not to
actually have a formal debate. We would if the theists were capable
of rising to the occasion, but not one of the Usenet theists we
regularly encounter here is capable of structuring even the limpest of
rational arguments in support of their beliefs or of supporting their
claims objectively.
No, the sole purpose of all of these challenges is to regularly
highlight how cowardly and vacuous the Usenet theists are, and every
challenge succeeds admirably in doing that since they either run from
the thread altogether, as Harrigon certainly appears to be doing here
(after all his bravado!) and as Loirbaj regularly does, or they run
from the challenge whilst remaining in the thread making feeble
excuses and side-stepping all requests that they support their
claims. Duke is the primary exponent of that cowardly technique
although Andrew is almost as good at it. Andrew is especially
proficient at derailing the initial topic of the thread and getting
all the atheists to follow him into a topic of his choice.
The fact that it is *so* easy to misdirect atheists is one of the
primary reasons we post debate challenges - to force the theists and
their fans face to face with the vacuity of their position and force
them to admit - however much they hate themselves for it and fight
against it - that when it comes down to the wire they have nothing to
offer.
If atheists are going to blindly allow themselves to be led by the
nose by theists redirecting threads to their own benefit and as long
as atheists willingly go along with the theist misdirection, we're
going to fight back with these challenges.
Why is it that so many atheists see Usenet encounters with the theists
as some sort of rational forum? It isn't. It never was. It can
never be: there's not a theist on the planet who can meet the criteria
required for a meaningful exchange because they have nothing to
offer. By definition they cannot meet the requirements because they
cannot offer science, they cannot offer objectivity, they cannot offer
intelligent rationale.
Usenet encounters with the theists are never about rational exchange.
The sole purpose here of the theists is to try to anger us and
embarrass us, and to try and put some meaning into their vacuous lives
through relentlessly attacking and trying to bully atheists! That ilk
of lowlife would have no life if it were not for us.
The truth is that we provide a valuable service for some very sick
people. There's no Xian love involved on their side. There is no
desire to witness from them. They feel no compassionate need to win
us to salvation. They have no intelligent purpose here at all, least
of all so-called Christian love.
The point of these challenges is not to get anything but guaranteed
failure out of the theists - it's solely to show that that Usenet
theists inevitably fail and fall short of the glory of their own god!
The point is to force them to expose their shortcomings for all to
see. They're coerced to consistently offer a de facto admission that
they can never supply anything of value - they can *never* offer the
very thing they claim to be able to offer. It's not about debating
but about exposing, embarrassing, shaming and degrading these frauds.
Once you get that you'll quit fretting over debating, and have some
fun in these groups.
Budikka
> In article <pan.2011.12.28.12.23...@gmx.at>, Florian Kutscherauer
>
> <florian.kutschera...@gmx.at> wrote:
> > chibiabos wrote:
> > > Simplified debate rules:
>
> > > [way too long to repost, see his article]
>
> > Is that how you debate in High School? Do you actually think that
> > anybody will remember those rules when shit starts flying?
>
> Of course not. "Debating" in Usenet is like baking a cake by throwing
> flour and eggs at the wall.
>
>
>
> > No plan survives first contact with the enemy! --- Helmuth von Moltke
>
> > Your idea is nice, but there is a problem: there is no independent party
> > that can enforce those rules. The kind of debate you are suggesting
> > requires a jury or judge to make sure the rules are being followed, but
> > without that, well, there are no rules.
>
> My post was intended to be more off-putting than to corral the guilty.
> The rules of debate are numerous and onerous, so I always laugh when
> someone proposes a "debate" on Usenet. There isn't a snowball's chance
> that it will be fair or reasonably structured, let alone judged
> impartially.
You are both of you completely missing the point. The point is not to
actually have a formal debate. We would if the theists were capable
of rising to the occasion, but not one of the Usenet theists we
regularly encounter here is capable of structuring even the limpest of
rational arguments in support of their beliefs or of supporting their
claims objectively.
No, the sole purpose of all of these challenges is to regularly
highlight how cowardly and vacuous the Usenet theists are, and every
challenge succeeds admirably in doing that since they either run from
the thread altogether, as Harrigon certainly appears to be doing here
(after all his bravado!) and as Loirbaj regularly does, or they run
from the challenge whilst remaining in the thread making feeble
excuses and side-stepping all requests that they support their
claims. Duke is the primary exponent of that cowardly technique
although Andrew is almost as good at it. Andrew is especially
proficient at derailing the initial topic of the thread and getting
all the atheists to follow him into a topic of his choice.
The fact that it is *so* easy to misdirect atheists is one of the
primary reasons we post debate challenges - to force the theists and
their fans face to face with the vacuity of their position and force
them to admit - however much they hate themselves for it and fight
against it - that when it comes down to the wire they have nothing to
offer.
If atheists are going to blindly allow themselves to be led by the
nose by theists redirecting threads to their own benefit and as long
as atheists willingly go along with the theist misdirection, we're
going to fight back with these challenges.
Why is it that so many atheists see Usenet encounters with the theists
as some sort of rational forum? It isn't. It never was. It can
never be: there's not a theist on the planet who can meet the criteria
required for a meaningful exchange because they have nothing to
offer. By definition they cannot meet the requirements because they
cannot offer science, they cannot offer objectivity, they cannot offer
intelligent rationale.
Usenet encounters with the theists are never about rational exchange.
The sole purpose here of the theists is to try to anger us and
embarrass us, and to try and put some meaning into their vacuous lives
through relentlessly attacking and trying to bully atheists! That ilk
of lowlife would have no life if it were not for us.
The truth is that we provide a valuable service for some very sick
people. There's no Xian love involved on their side. There is no
desire to witness from them. They feel no compassionate need to win
us to salvation. They have no intelligent purpose here at all, least
of all so-called Christian love.
The point of these challenges is not to get anything but guaranteed
failure out of the theists - it's solely to show that that Usenet
theists inevitably fail and fall short of the glory of their own god!
The point is to force them to expose their shortcomings for all to
see. They're coerced to consistently offer a de facto admission that
they can never supply anything of value - they can *never* offer the
very thing they claim to be able to offer. It's not about debating
but about exposing, embarrassing, shaming and degrading these frauds.
Once you get that you'll quit fretting over debating, and have some
fun in these groups.
Budikka
Budikka666
Dec 31, 2011, 3:35:54 PM12/31/11
to
Your fifteen minutes is up jackass. I've returned your pathetic
childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c647b972f1f?scoring=d&
Budikka
childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c647b972f1f?scoring=d&
Budikka
Zacharias Mulletstein
Dec 31, 2011, 11:54:02 PM12/31/11
to
news:95037f79-d18c-4773...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Buddy, if you want to debate me, then do it right here or get bent. The
first topic: Is religion a force of good or evil in this world? You get to
go first.
first topic: Is religion a force of good or evil in this world? You get to
go first.
Budikka666
Jan 2, 2012, 12:43:31 PM1/2/12
to
On Dec 31 2011, 10:54 pm, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> Buddy, if you want todebateme, then do it right here or get bent. The
independent objective evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c647b972f1f?scoring=d&
There's no point in chasing you around wasting my time in more than
one thread. Go to the other thread if you have anything to offer, but
from what you've posted there so far, I see nothing to even refute,
let alone debate.
Do us all a favor: before you post over there again, look up
"independent", "objective', and "evidence". 'kay?
Budikka
<zachariasmulletst...@isalwaysright.com> wrote:
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:95037f79-d18c-4773...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your fifteen minutes is up jackass. I've returned your pathetic
> > childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
> > forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
> > pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c64...
> news:95037f79-d18c-4773...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your fifteen minutes is up jackass. I've returned your pathetic
> > childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
> > forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
> > pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
>
> Buddy, if you want todebateme, then do it right here or get bent. The
> first topic: Is religion a force of good or evil in this world? You get to
> go first.
>
> --
> I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
> Jesus Christ.
The debate will take place at the below URL if you can ever put up any
> go first.
>
> --
> I am a Fundamentalist Christian Pentecostal Warrior for the One lamb virgin,
> Jesus Christ.
independent objective evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c647b972f1f?scoring=d&
There's no point in chasing you around wasting my time in more than
one thread. Go to the other thread if you have anything to offer, but
from what you've posted there so far, I see nothing to even refute,
let alone debate.
Do us all a favor: before you post over there again, look up
"independent", "objective', and "evidence". 'kay?
Budikka
Budikka666
Jan 2, 2012, 12:55:35 PM1/2/12
to
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> Buddy, if you want todebateme, then do it right here or get bent. The
thrice you've denied him, counting the two time sin the other thread
where you are still running from my request that you post independent
objective evidence that there was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son
Admit it, you're just another limp Peter at the passion.
And to answer your weasel-piss question - religion has *already* been
shown to be a force for evil.
The Judaists showed it in the Bible itself, as recounted in scores of
stories about the ancient Hebrews *slaughtering* people over land in
the name of Judaism.
It was shown in the Middle East as the Arabs did the same thing in the
name of Islam, and are repeating in the modern age with terrorism.
It was shown throughout Christianity in the endless crusades, witch-
hunts, inquisitions, pogroms, and heretic burnings.
It's apparent in Iraq right this minute as religious factions fight
and war against each other.
Religion has introduced, at it's very core, the concept of the chosen
and the doomed. How can it *not* be a force for evil?
It continues in the US as fundamentalists try to force the lie of
young-Earth creation on children in school, and try to suppress
freedoms and individuality in their mindless drive to turn everyone in
obedient sheep.
That answer your question, numbnuts?
Budikka
>
> news:95037f79-d18c-4773...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your fifteen minutes is up jackass. I've returned your pathetic
> > childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
> > forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
> > pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/20d37c64...
> news:95037f79-d18c-4773...@r5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Your fifteen minutes is up jackass. I've returned your pathetic
> > childish challenge and turned it into a real one in an independent
> > forum where you don't get to pull sad lies out of your dumb ass and
> > pretend it's truth. Here's the thread. Take it or run Zachy-Baby:
>
> Buddy, if you want todebateme, then do it right here or get bent. The
> first topic: Is religion a force of good or evil in this world? You get to
> go first.
So you admit you fled my my challenge that you support Jesus? That's
> go first.
thrice you've denied him, counting the two time sin the other thread
where you are still running from my request that you post independent
objective evidence that there was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son
Admit it, you're just another limp Peter at the passion.
And to answer your weasel-piss question - religion has *already* been
shown to be a force for evil.
The Judaists showed it in the Bible itself, as recounted in scores of
stories about the ancient Hebrews *slaughtering* people over land in
the name of Judaism.
It was shown in the Middle East as the Arabs did the same thing in the
name of Islam, and are repeating in the modern age with terrorism.
It was shown throughout Christianity in the endless crusades, witch-
hunts, inquisitions, pogroms, and heretic burnings.
It's apparent in Iraq right this minute as religious factions fight
and war against each other.
Religion has introduced, at it's very core, the concept of the chosen
and the doomed. How can it *not* be a force for evil?
It continues in the US as fundamentalists try to force the lie of
young-Earth creation on children in school, and try to suppress
freedoms and individuality in their mindless drive to turn everyone in
obedient sheep.
That answer your question, numbnuts?
Budikka
Zacharias Mulletstein
Jan 2, 2012, 3:01:56 PM1/2/12
to
news:492f521f-b426-46dc...@24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
No evidence is good enough for you. If I had a video of Jesus turning water
into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it. So I'm through
arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it. So I'm through
arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
Free Lunch
Jan 2, 2012, 3:11:07 PM1/2/12
to
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:01:56 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
<zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
No evidence has been offered. None. Don't try to excuse your failure to
offer any evidence at all by objecting that the standard of evidence is
unfairly high.
>If I had a video of Jesus turning water
>into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it.
Since Jesus is supposed to have lived a couple of thousand years ago,
you know that the video you would be offering would be fraudulent.
>So I'm through
>arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
>and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
You keep offering these hypotheticals because we all know that you have
absolutely no reals. Keep making your excuses old fraud, keep making
'em.
I can see why you ran away.
<zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
offer any evidence at all by objecting that the standard of evidence is
unfairly high.
>If I had a video of Jesus turning water
>into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it.
you know that the video you would be offering would be fraudulent.
>So I'm through
>arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
>and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
absolutely no reals. Keep making your excuses old fraud, keep making
'em.
I can see why you ran away.
Christopher A. Lee
Jan 2, 2012, 3:12:57 PM1/2/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:11:07 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:01:56 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
><zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>If I had a video of Jesus turning water
>>into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it.
>
>Since Jesus is supposed to have lived a couple of thousand years ago,
>you know that the video you would be offering would be fraudulent.
>
>>So I'm through
>>arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
>>and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
>
>You keep offering these hypotheticals because we all know that you have
>absolutely no reals. Keep making your excuses old fraud, keep making
>'em.
Not just excuses, but personal lies.
>I can see why you ran away.
He's a Christian doing what Christians do when they have painted
themselves into a corner.
Too bad they leave footprints.
wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 14:01:56 -0600, "Zacharias Mulletstein"
><zachariasm...@isalwaysright.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>No evidence is good enough for you.
>
>No evidence has been offered. None. Don't try to excuse your failure to
>offer any evidence at all by objecting that the standard of evidence is
>unfairly high.
...by resorting to personal lies.
>
>No evidence has been offered. None. Don't try to excuse your failure to
>offer any evidence at all by objecting that the standard of evidence is
>unfairly high.
>>If I had a video of Jesus turning water
>>into wine or walking on water, you would not accept it.
>
>Since Jesus is supposed to have lived a couple of thousand years ago,
>you know that the video you would be offering would be fraudulent.
>
>>So I'm through
>>arguing with you pop athiests. Jesus Christ could appear in your bedroom
>>and punch you in the face and you would still deny him.
>
>You keep offering these hypotheticals because we all know that you have
>absolutely no reals. Keep making your excuses old fraud, keep making
>'em.
>I can see why you ran away.
themselves into a corner.
Too bad they leave footprints.
ken
Jan 2, 2012, 3:37:32 PM1/2/12
to
On Jan 2, 12:01 pm, "Zacharias Mulletstein" wrote:
I am a Fundamentalist Fool
WOZZER!
Just found Zack's Proof of Life!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKk00OYKhU
I am a Fundamentalist Fool
WOZZER!
Just found Zack's Proof of Life!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKk00OYKhU
Samuel Harrigon
Jan 3, 2012, 8:01:48 PM1/3/12
to
On Dec 26 2011, 6:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
Alright Buddika. Let's get this show on the road. Now obviously go
have quite a lot of opinions that are no doubt dependent on science.
Depending on your thought process that could be a good thing or a bad
thing. For your question number one, I can tell you that my god exists
based on mine and several other experiences. No countless other
experiences. Everyone in my church has prayed through And has been
saved. This is something that not just everyone can say. From personal
experience, when I was saved, I felt the most pleasant feeling, like I
was being washed over with something beautiful and meant just for me.
This was the holy ghost. I spoke in tongues and I felt the sensation
of peace with the world, a natural high that only god could offer, it
like the Bible and my pastor described.
As for question 2, I can show you there is one god based on the bible.
That is evidence based on what I have studied for years and what I
have found and felt throughout my years both in seminary and simply as
a devout follower of Christ. The bible says there is one lord, one
faith, and one baptism. That's all I need to know. The bible hasn't
let me down before.
Thirdly, i can answer that with a short sentence: 'Genesis 1:1: in the
beginning, god created the heavens and the earth.' that's that. Not to
mention the scientific evidence that has been found. There is
undeniable proof the this world wasn't formed by some miraculous big
bang. You cannot tell me with a straight face that some crash happened
and boom there was earth. There had to be an intelligent design. That
would be the lord thy god.
Fourth: I know the lord is not a figment of my imagination. He has
touched me in ways I cannot even begin to describe. He blessed me with
the holy ghost, called me into the ministry, and has given me a church
filled with the best people if I've ever met. I've felt his presence,
and I have spoken in heavenly languages. I have had dreams where god
has spoken to me and everything that happened I the dreams eventually
came true. I wont bore you with the details but trust me. It's true.
Whenever I needed a helping hand, Jesus was there to help me.
Jesus is the miracle working son of a god because there is evidence
and documents dating back to his life tha have been found all over the
world. Not just in the bible but in scripts all across the globe
hidden in caves and such. You can look it up anytime you want. There
are other gospels and several people that have been interviewed. These
people are known authorities on all things religion. Not just theists
but even scientists have confirmed the existence of Jesus. Also, these
other documents contain eyewitness accounts of his miracles. You can
look them up.
Thank you for your time buddika. I await your response. Have a blessed
day.
Rev. Samuel Harrigon
Good Old Gospel Ship Church
have quite a lot of opinions that are no doubt dependent on science.
Depending on your thought process that could be a good thing or a bad
thing. For your question number one, I can tell you that my god exists
based on mine and several other experiences. No countless other
experiences. Everyone in my church has prayed through And has been
saved. This is something that not just everyone can say. From personal
experience, when I was saved, I felt the most pleasant feeling, like I
was being washed over with something beautiful and meant just for me.
This was the holy ghost. I spoke in tongues and I felt the sensation
of peace with the world, a natural high that only god could offer, it
like the Bible and my pastor described.
As for question 2, I can show you there is one god based on the bible.
That is evidence based on what I have studied for years and what I
have found and felt throughout my years both in seminary and simply as
a devout follower of Christ. The bible says there is one lord, one
faith, and one baptism. That's all I need to know. The bible hasn't
let me down before.
Thirdly, i can answer that with a short sentence: 'Genesis 1:1: in the
beginning, god created the heavens and the earth.' that's that. Not to
mention the scientific evidence that has been found. There is
undeniable proof the this world wasn't formed by some miraculous big
bang. You cannot tell me with a straight face that some crash happened
and boom there was earth. There had to be an intelligent design. That
would be the lord thy god.
Fourth: I know the lord is not a figment of my imagination. He has
touched me in ways I cannot even begin to describe. He blessed me with
the holy ghost, called me into the ministry, and has given me a church
filled with the best people if I've ever met. I've felt his presence,
and I have spoken in heavenly languages. I have had dreams where god
has spoken to me and everything that happened I the dreams eventually
came true. I wont bore you with the details but trust me. It's true.
Whenever I needed a helping hand, Jesus was there to help me.
Jesus is the miracle working son of a god because there is evidence
and documents dating back to his life tha have been found all over the
world. Not just in the bible but in scripts all across the globe
hidden in caves and such. You can look it up anytime you want. There
are other gospels and several people that have been interviewed. These
people are known authorities on all things religion. Not just theists
but even scientists have confirmed the existence of Jesus. Also, these
other documents contain eyewitness accounts of his miracles. You can
look them up.
Thank you for your time buddika. I await your response. Have a blessed
day.
Rev. Samuel Harrigon
Good Old Gospel Ship Church
ken
Jan 3, 2012, 9:02:07 PM1/3/12
to
And what if I use DC Comic book's and several movies I've seen to
prove the existance of Superman?..
(which is exactly like what you're doing)
Kryptonite must exist because known authorities have placed Krypton on
the Periodic Chart of the Elements
You're ENTIRE argument can be summed up in this one statement as
Compulsive Delusionary Behaviour:
A very strong case can be made that many of the steadfastly-
religiously-convinced are actually mentally ill. The pleasant
escape from reality that they so often indulge in is no
more than the escape psychotics experience when they seek
refuge from reality in a delusional dreamworld of imaginary
beliefs.
Devils Advocaat
Jan 16, 2012, 2:34:38 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 4, 1:01 am, Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26 2011, 6:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 10:46 pm,SamuelHarrigon<samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I want to have an honestdebatewith Buddika666. It seems she is always challenging people here.
> On Dec 26 2011, 6:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 10:46 pm,SamuelHarrigon<samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
And you were asked for objective evidence.
> As for question 2, I can show you there is one god based on the bible.
> That is evidence based on what I have studied for years and what I
> have found and felt throughout my years both in seminary and simply as
> a devout follower of Christ. The bible says there is one lord, one
> faith, and one baptism. That's all I need to know. The bible hasn't
> let me down before.
And you were asked for objective evidence.
> Thirdly, i can answer that with a short sentence: 'Genesis 1:1: in the
> beginning, god created the heavens and the earth.' that's that. Not to
> mention the scientific evidence that has been found. There is
> undeniable proof the this world wasn't formed by some miraculous big
> bang. You cannot tell me with a straight face that some crash happened
> and boom there was earth. There had to be an intelligent design. That
> would be the lord thy god.
You were asked for objective evidence.
> Fourth: I know the lord is not a figment of my imagination. He has
> touched me in ways I cannot even begin to describe. He blessed me with
> the holy ghost, called me into the ministry, and has given me a church
> filled with the best people if I've ever met. I've felt his presence,
> and I have spoken in heavenly languages. I have had dreams where god
> has spoken to me and everything that happened I the dreams eventually
> came true. I wont bore you with the details but trust me. It's true.
> Whenever I needed a helping hand, Jesus was there to help me.
> Jesus is the miracle working son of a god because there is evidence
> and documents dating back to his life tha have been found all over the
> world. Not just in the bible but in scripts all across the globe
> hidden in caves and such. You can look it up anytime you want. There
> are other gospels and several people that have been interviewed. These
> people are known authorities on all things religion. Not just theists
> but even scientists have confirmed the existence of Jesus. Also, these
> other documents contain eyewitness accounts of his miracles. You can
> look them up.
not?
You were asked for objective evidence.
>
> Thank you for your time buddika. I await your response. Have a blessed
> day.
>
> Rev. Samuel Harrigon
> Good Old Gospel Ship Church
And once again objective evidence has not been presented.
Perhaps you should reread the biblical account about Thomas Didymus.
Smiler
Jan 16, 2012, 11:20:52 PM1/16/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:34:38 -0800, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On Jan 4, 1:01 am, Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26 2011, 6:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
<snip>
> On Jan 4, 1:01 am, Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 26 2011, 6:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
0 new messages