And Jeremiah The Prophet Said:
Prophet
Hananiah, the LORD has not sent you, and you have made this people
trust in a lie."Jeremiah 28:15
Guess what.
Today we have a modern day Hananiah just like in the days of
Jeremiah.
This modern day Hananiah has made people trust in a lie. This modern
day Hananiah was not sent from God.
This modern day prophet says it alone knows all about mankind's true
origins.
The modern day Hananiah leads the people away from the one true God
with it's lies.
This modern day Hananiah is the ToE. This modern day Hananiah is also
every one of those that teach the children of God the ToE is fact.
Does this matter? Let's see what Jesus of Nazareth said about
misleading God's children:
""But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around
his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." Mark 9:42
Evolution causes the children to stumble, to fall.
Wake up all you that teach evolution.
--
The face of an Angel carrying the word of God is...
The All Seeing I
Mike Jones
> "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you a
> twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
"Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
one?"
(Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
raven1
wrote:
>"Then Jeremiah the prophet sai
HO! <whack!>
Syd M.
> "Then Jeremiah the prophet said
We don't care.
PDW
LC
"Prophet" <el...@priest.com> wrote in message
news:680a200a-4381-449d...@l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Re: And Jeremiah The Prophet Said:
...lay off the TurboDog, k00k.
Turn it up and 'profit': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo
Prophet
> Responding to Prophet:
>
> > "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you a
> > twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
>
> And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
> did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
> "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
> one?"
>
> (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>
> --
> *=( For all your UK news needs.
Don't you want to save your soul?
j-rod
Save your own soul Prophet.
I'll worry about mine.
We'll get along just fine.
JAM
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
There's no evidence that souls exist. What do you think saving it means?
If it means that I am stuck next to intentionally ignorant fools like
you for eternity the answer is a resounding "no". You are evil.
Mike Jones
Would this involve you jumping off a tall building?
Or even just not x-posting religious twaddle to alt.*ATHEISM* ?
"This is an atheist NG for atheist people!. We'll have no twatting here!"
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Franklin
> Don't you want to save your soul?
Why do you think that people have souls in need of saving?
Mike
SkyEyes
There's no evidence that any part of human consciousness survives the
death of the brain, or that any such thing as the "soul" even exists.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Prophet
> Responding to Prophet:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 1:49 pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
> >> Responding to Prophet:
>
> >> > "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you
> >> > a twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his
> >> > twattings!"
>
> >> And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible
> >> twatitude did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their
> >> twatification "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this
> >> twat when you need one?"
>
> >> (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>
> >> --
> >> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> >> *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> > Don't you want to save your soul?
>
> Would this involve you jumping off a tall building?
>
> Or even just not x-posting religious twaddle to alt.*ATHEISM* ?
>
> "This is an atheist NG for atheist people!. We'll have no twatting here!"
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
>
> - Show quoted text -
Excuse me... alt.*ATHEISM is a *PUBLIC* news group and it is not only
for Atheists. Plus you are breaking the official charter of the
alt.atheism newsgroup by discouraging cross postings. Don't believe
me? Let's take a look.
According to the ''''charter'''' cross posting will not be
discouraged:
=====================
CHARTER: alt.atheism
An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a
forum for the discussion of all aspects
of atheism.
Possible discussions are, but not limited to:
- Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression(USSR)
- Mao's Great Leap Backwards
- Mao's Cultural Devolution
- Pol Pots Cambodian Genocide
- Nth Korea
- Richard Dawkins, Hitler and Eugenics
- Atheist fundamentalism
- The decline in global Atheism
- Metaphysics.. Just kidding!
- Jesus jokes
- Hard-Core Atheist thuggery
- forging
- Slandering
- Lying
- Pack Hunting
- BAWAA
This group will be unmoderated.
Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated
commercial advertisements are prohibited.
Cross-posting should not be discouraged.
Knowledge is Holistic, Users should exercise their
judgment as to which NGs are relevant
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism.satire/browse_thread/thread/42be33cf21b7f979/ccadf619124abad3?lnk=raot
===========================================
If this were talk.origins you could ban me like they did for pointing
out THE RULES OF POSTING.
But since you can't, I'll ask again:
"Do you WANT to lose your soul"?
My comments are "Holistic" to the knowledge of the group. Which meets
the charter requirements.
Your reply OTOH does NOT meet the charter requirements of "Cross-
posting should not be discouraged".
I await your answer with breathless anticipation.
PS: Please note that the charter lumps Dawkind and Hitler in the same
catagory:
"Richard Dawkins, Hitler and Eugenics"
That says alot ...eh?
Tim Miller
Saving from WHAT, exactly?
Xan Du
point to the other side.
-Xan
Prophet
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Prophet <el...@priest.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Responding to Prophet:
>
> >> > "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you a
> >> > twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
>
> >> And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
> >> did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
> >> "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
> >> one?"
>
> >> (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>
> >> --
> >> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> >> *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> >Don't you want to save your soul?
>
>
> If it means that I am stuck next to intentionally ignorant fools like
>
> - Show quoted text -
My old friend Free. Don't you realize that you are ONE (1) of the
primary reasons that I post?
Don't you remember that weekend long ago when you spent 32 out of 48
straight hours of your life responding to me in an effort to make me
go away?
Please pay attention. Answer the question.
Do you WANT to lose your soul for driving God's children away from him
and into the arms of a theory that is subjective at best?
Why would you want to deceive so many with such nonsense as the Toe?
Every bit of he Toe's evidence is subject to various interpretations
and even scientists themselves argue about exactly what the evidence
means.
It is a cute story about the origins of species but it is far from
fact. So why present it as such?
God's version of the origins of species is supported by thousands of
years, many civilizations, and hundreds of generations of people. If
it were all a lie, we would have known that by now. No lie has ever
lasted THAT long throughout history.
Where did the Toe come from? A spoiled rich man's kid that was over
protected by his sisters after their mother died. His sisters said
Darwin had an over active imagination when he was a kid and nothing
changed when he fantasized about the origins of species.
All the Toe is good for is giving those that don't want to believe in
God, or that refuse to, something else to believe in.
Which is fine if that is what you want to believe. But why persuade
others away from the truth about the one true God?
Tim Miller
> God's version of the origins of species is supported by thousands of
Supported HOW, exactly? Hell, your god isn't even the
"majority player".
> years, many civilizations, and hundreds of generations of people. If
> it were all a lie, we would have known that by now. No lie has ever
> lasted THAT long throughout history.
And yet, in ALL that time, you STILL can't produce ANY
evidence.
Why IS that?
Prophet
Well, it has been mentioned by various societies in their books and
traditions for more then 6000 years now. Do you actually think a lie
could last THAT long? Could all of those people and ALL of those books
be one big lie? A sorta mellow mass hysteria?
unlikely
That means the probability their stories are based in fact is high.
But with the ToE scientists cannot even agree on exactly what all of
the evidence means at times. And the ToE is not even 300 years old
yet.
It is a 'no-brainier' if you have even a modicum of intelligence.
Any thinking person would be AT LEAST be concerned that books like the
bible are grounded in truth.
Even a skeptic would see a few red flags here and there.
But not the Atheist for some odd reason.
Why is that?
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brenda. Get real.
WHY would you expect *tangible* evidence for something that is NOT
tangible?
Don't you guys realize this is the lamest argument that the atheists
make?
Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
real.
There is not going to be scientific evidence for the soul because
science only deals with the natural world.
Your soul goes beyond what can be perceived with physical senses so
scientific tools will be useless and, as limited as man's senses are.
Which BTW are not as good as your cat's senses. The animals on
SirLanka knew to run. The humans did not. And you expect a man-made
science to be fully accurate?
Surely you jest....
Tim Miller
> Any thinking person would be AT LEAST be concerned that books like the
> bible are grounded in truth.
Why? Hell, the xtian bible isn't even SELF-consistent.
Tim Miller
>
> Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
> real.
Well, yeah. It does.
Allan Matthews
@t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, el...@priest.com says...
>
> On Mar 22, 7:05 pm, Mike Franklin <mkfrn...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 2:35 pm, Prophet <el...@priest.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't you want to save your soul?
> >
> > Why do you think that people have souls in need of saving?
> >
> > Mike
>
> Well, it has been mentioned by various societies in their books and
> traditions for more then 6000 years now.
Yeah, and people have been afraid of dying for far longer than that.
> Do you actually think a lie could last THAT long?
"A" lie? There isn't "a" lie. None of these stories are the same.
> Could all of those people and ALL of those books
> be one big lie?
I'm not sure I'd call them lies, but they're certainly mistaken.
Otherwise they'd agree on at least something, but they don't.
> A sorta mellow mass hysteria?
Nothing mellow about theists. Nasty, violent lot they are. And it's
not so much hysteria as delusion.
> unlikely
So you say, but cannot prove.
> That means the probability their stories are based in fact is high.
No, it doesn't mean that in the least. It might if they actually agreed
on something, but they don't. The 'holy' books of one culture bear
little resemblance to those of another.
> But with the ToE scientists cannot even agree on exactly what all of
> the evidence means at times. And the ToE is not even 300 years old
> yet.
There is a far greater degree of agreement among evolutionary biologists
than there is among theists. Of course biologists actually work with
evidence while theists just have their silly evidence-free stories.
> It is a 'no-brainier' if you have even a modicum of intelligence.
Clearly you fail to meet that criterion.
> Any thinking person would be AT LEAST be concerned that books like the
> bible are grounded in truth.
Why should the bible be taken as any more true than, say, the Vedas or
the Book of Going Forth by Day? As all these books are not even
internally consistent, let alone in agreement between them, the logical
conclusion is that they are all false.
> Even a skeptic would see a few red flags here and there.
How so?
> But not the Atheist for some odd reason.
Not so odd if you have "a modicum of intelligence."
> Why is that?
Theists are intellectually crippled.
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
"And the moral of the story?
Don't leave things in the fridge."
=========================================
Prophet
wrote:
eeeekkkk... "THAT'S a wrong Answer"!
You cannot hold or measure your thoughts, but each are real ....eh?
of course.
Tim Miller
> On Mar 22, 8:25 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Prophet wrote:
>>
>>> Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
>>> real.
>> Well, yeah. It does.
>
> eeeekkkk... "THAT'S a wrong Answer"!
>
Well, no, it isn't.
Sorry, sport.
Ken
wrote:
> Prophet wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 8:25 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Prophet wrote:
>
> >>> Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
> >>> real.
> Well, no, it isn't.
>
> Sorry, sport.
You may want to remind ASSman that his fellow creationut nitwit Dave
saz:
there's "physical evidence" of their sky fairy, not to mention "vast
evidences" and "proof" and "supporting evidence" and "proven
historical evidence" BUT, for some strange reason, neither of them
EVER produce ANY of it
Allan Matthews
@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, el...@priest.com says...
Of course the electrical activity in the brain that thought is composed
of is easily measured.
Another massive theist fail.
Mark Evans
Actually, Lloyd, thoughts can be measured and held. Of course the
reality of your thoughts is questionable at the best of times.
Mark Evans
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You are the liar here. You are the one who invents claims that you know
you cannot back up. I am not worried about your silly claims about souls
because there is no evidence that your claims are true in any way.
Xan Du
Um ...
>
> Don't you guys realize this is the lamest argument that the atheists
> make?
Er ...
>
> Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
> real.
Ahhh ...
>
> There is not going to be scientific evidence for the soul because
> science only deals with the natural world.
>
Oooo ...
> Your soul goes beyond what can be perceived with physical senses so
> scientific tools will be useless and, as limited as man's senses are.
Uhhh ...
> Which BTW are not as good as your cat's senses. The animals on
> SirLanka knew to run. The humans did not. And you expect a man-made
> science to be fully accurate?
"fully accurate"?
Duhhhhhh ...
> Surely you jest....
No, but we're laughing.
-Xan
Olrik
Thoughts are measurable. They register as brain activity on different
instruments.
We can alter them at will with various drugs and brain surgery.
Wanna try?
> of course.
Xan Du
That reminds me, I haven't had my monthly lobotomy. I'll schedule it
right away ...
-Xan
>
>> of course.
Olrik
Here's a brain-altering clip. You won't feel like yourself for a long
time(1) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD7MHgskNwg
(1) : NOT covered by Obamacare!
Olrik
> -Xan
Xan Du
It's like a trailer for Beach Blanket Bingo gone horribly horribly wrong.
> (1) : NOT covered by Obamacare!
I'm screwed then.
-Xan
The Chief Instigator
> "Then Jeremiah the prophet said to Hananiah the prophet, "Listen now,
> Hananiah, the LORD has not sent you, and you have made this people
> trust in a lie."Jeremiah 28:15
>
> Guess what.
> Today we have a modern day Hananiah just like in the days of
> Jeremiah.
>
> This modern day Hananiah has made people trust in a lie. This modern
> day Hananiah was not sent from God.
>
> This modern day prophet says it alone knows all about mankind's true
> origins.
>
> The modern day Hananiah leads the people away from the one true God
> with it's lies.
>
>
> This modern day Hananiah is the ToE. This modern day Hananiah is also
> every one of those that teach the children of God the ToE is fact.
>
> Does this matter? Let's see what Jesus of Nazareth said about
> misleading God's children:
>
> ""But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
> stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around
> his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." Mark 9:42
>
>
> Evolution causes the children to stumble, to fall.
>
> Wake up all you that teach evolution.
>
>
> --
> The face of an Angel carrying the word of God is...
>
>
> The All Seeing I
So, are you going to own up for Katrina, which killed quite a few of your
neighbors?
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 2, Houston 1 (OT, March 21)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 26 vs. Lake Erie, 7:35
Syd M.
> On Mar 22, 1:49 pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Responding to Prophet:
>
> > > "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you a
> > > twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
>
> > And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
> > did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
> > "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
> > one?"
>
> > (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>
> > --
> > *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> > *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> Don't you want to save your soul?
Prove a 'soul' exists, son.
PDW
Syd M.
> ===========================================
>
> If this were talk.origins you could ban me like they did for pointing
> out THE RULES OF POSTING.
>
> But since you can't, I'll ask again:
>
> "Do you WANT to lose your soul"?
>
> My comments are "Holistic" to the knowledge of the group. Which meets
> the charter requirements.
>
> Your reply OTOH does NOT meet the charter requirements of "Cross-
> posting should not be discouraged".
>
> I await your answer with breathless anticipation.
>
> PS: Please note that the charter lumps Dawkind and Hitler in the same
> catagory:
>
> "Richard Dawkins, Hitler and Eugenics"
>
> That says alot ...eh?
Yep.
Your just another dishonest theist.
PDW
walksalone
september.org:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD7MHgskNwg
Talk about cruel and unusual punishment. But no, it did not alter my
current psychological state. After 20 years of military service and three
years in Vietnam, expenses all paid, and the tree cutting ceremony of
Korea, that's nowhere good enough.
walksalone who has often thought, if you feel clip is sufficient to alter
my perceptions in a way I feel, possibly this is the only one that I have
encountered to date.
Warning, not for those that have empathy or concern for their fellow
humans. This one will hurt you if you are not careful. Put it in a
genuine EAC emotions prove all and view only by remote control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qX2gmnueBE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD_MZjJB56A
different view on the same song.
Considering these were written in the fifties, the god of xianity is a
mentioned.
Mike Jones
Oh pur-leeeez!
QUOTE: "a forum for the discussion of all aspects of atheism"
Not "proselytize religion", or "preach your debunked fantasy stories",
etc. Cross-posting your twatitudes is whats being poked at with a sharp
stick here, and you know it, because you are an established twat of the
highest twatness. Your obvious attempt at a classic distraction-dodge
noted BTW.
I strongly suspect sports trolling here, as no godbot could be this
deliberately determined to be a twat.
It sure looks like the above prophecy is coming true though! %)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Prophet
I can see you are not convinced.
Let's look at this again, shall we?
From the charter:
"This group will be unmoderated."
Yet you insist on your brand of moderation by telling me the topic is
not germane to AA.
"Cross-posting should not be discouraged."
Yet you insist that I do not cross post.
"Knowledge is Holistic"
But you want to silence what you do not want to hear. Which means you
will never be whole in knowledge.
At this point one would have to ask if you really take your atheism
seriously. Atheist for the most part are quite intelligent. That is
why they question everything and demand evidence.
You OTOH desire to turn a blind eye to the other side. My side. The
side that gives alternate information and provides you with holistic
knowledge on the subject of atheism/theism.
What are you afraid of? That i might be right?
--
Those silly atheists. Ya gotta luv them, says...
The All Seeing I
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Come on X-man
You can make a better argument then THAT
Ken
> Responding to Prophet:
> QUOTE: "a forum for the discussion of all aspects of atheism"
>
> Not "proselytize religion", or "preach your debunked fantasy stories",
> etc. Cross-posting your twatitudes is whats being poked at with a sharp
> stick here, and you know it, because you are an established twat of the
> highest twatness. Your obvious attempt at a classic distraction-dodge
> noted BTW.
>
> I strongly suspect sports trolling here, as no godbot could be this
> deliberately determined to be a twat.
>
> It sure looks like the above prophecy is coming true though! %)
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> *=( For all your UK news needs.-
Assman needs all the attention he can muster after getting his dumbass
booted from TO
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What kind of evidence will you accept?
As it stand now you have drawn a box around yourself with science and
then claim anything outside this box of science is not real or does
not exist.
but we know this is not true because there is much phenomena in the
universe that science cannot explain. Why is that?
raven1
wrote:
Why does *every* theist eventually try to pull this nonsense? You
claim to have evidence, then try to weasel out of saying what it is.
Present what *you* think constitutes evidence, and let people judge it
for themselves.
>As it stand now you have drawn a box around yourself with science and
>then claim anything outside this box of science is not real or does
>not exist.
>
>but we know this is not true because there is much phenomena in the
>universe that science cannot explain. Why is that?
No one claims that science can explain everything. Now let's see your
evidence.
Wombat
You actually expect Twatman to give evidence? It is one thing he has
steadfastly refused to do since he turned up a year or so ago. Good
luck, though.
Wombat
Ken
> Now let's see your evidence.
Assman has the exactly same evidence that Dimwitted Dave has, which
is:
NONE
ZERO
ZIP
NADA
ZILCH
NOTHING
Prophet
> Le 2010-03-22 21:32, Prophet a écrit :
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:25 pm, Tim Miller<replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> Prophet wrote:
>
> >>> real.
>
>
> > eeeekkkk... "THAT'S a wrong Answer"!
>
> > You cannot hold or measure your thoughts, but each are real ....eh?
>
> Thoughts are measurable. They register as brain activity on different
> instruments.
>
> We can alter them at will with various drugs and brain surgery.
>
> Wanna try?
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can you hold a thought? no
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah. They were begining to believe me and the truth about the one
true God. So they had to silence me.
Of course they ban me in vain. I can come up with a thousand IP addys
and even more email addys.
I choose not to return.
You need my help more.
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why not answer the question for a change atheist?
Tell me what type of evidence will you accept.
Prophet
Marky please.
Stop SmoKIN the local herb.
Ralph
ROTFLMAO!! ROTFLMAO!! What a stooge you are, Assman.
Ralph
Can you have a thought? Didn't think so.
Mike Franklin
> On Mar 22, 7:05 pm, Mike Franklin <mkfrn...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 2:35 pm, Prophet <el...@priest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mike
>
> Well, it has been mentioned by various societies in their books and
> traditions for more then 6000 years now. Do you actually think a lie
> could last THAT long?
Of course, although it's not necessarily a lie; it could simply be a
mistake. And yes, a mistaken belief could easily last 6000 years.
Hinduism is practiced by roughly one billion people and is commonly
regarded as the oldest living religion. Do you accept the major
tenets of Hinduism?
> Could all of those people and ALL of those books
> be one big lie? A sorta mellow mass hysteria?
Again, it doesn't have to be a lie to be untrue.
> unlikely
>
> That means the probability their stories are based in fact is high.
Why? It is a fact that people believe things that are untrue. Do you
accept the major tenets of Hinduism? What about the religions of
ancient Egypt? Greece? Many people practiced those religions for
thousands of years. According to your logic, they are therefore
likely to be true. Do you believe in Horus? Isis? Zeus? Apollo?
Why not?
[ snip stuff about evolution ]
> Any thinking person would be AT LEAST be concerned that books like the
> bible are grounded in truth.
Most atheists I know are very concerned about truth. The reasons you
give for believing the claims of the Bible are that it's old and lots
of people believe it.
> Even a skeptic would see a few red flags here and there.
Perhaps you could go into more detail regarding these flags.
> But not the Atheist for some odd reason.
> Why is that?
The only flag you've pointed out is the "Old and Popular" flag, and
you shouldn't consider it odd that some people aren't impressed by it.
I asked you why you believe we have souls that needs saving. Your
answer was basically that thousands of years ago, some people believed
that we have souls that need saving, and they wrote that down, and now
lots of people believe we have souls that need saving. If you're
going to accept claims based on that standard, you're going to have to
accept an extemely large number of claims, many of them
contradictory. Therefore, that is an insufficient standard to accept
claims as true.
Mike
Mark Evans
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, the racal slur and the projection of his drug addiction in place
of a response. Lloyd, you never change and never show an original
thought.
Mark Evans
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>What kind of evidence will you accept?
Why do you ask that question. You don't have any evidence.
>As it stand now you have drawn a box around yourself with science and
>then claim anything outside this box of science is not real or does
>not exist.
Nonsense. I have always said that I will accept evidence. You know you
have no evidence, so you quibble about the meaning of words.
>but we know this is not true because there is much phenomena in the
>universe that science cannot explain. Why is that?
How would you know? You worship ignorance.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Mar 23, 11:37 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
...
>> No one claims that science can explain everything. Now let's see your
>> evidence.
>
>Why not answer the question for a change atheist?
>
>Tell me what type of evidence will you accept.
I have answered repeatedly and you have repeatedly ignored the answer.
I will accept evidence. I will not accept fraudulent nonsense that you
know is not evidence. Stop making excuses for having no evidence. Stop
hiding your lies behind excuses.
We all know that you know that you have no evidence. Your pathetic
whining just reminds us that you know you have nothing.
raven1
wrote:
>Why not answer the question for a change atheist?
>
>Tell me what type of evidence will you accept.
Again, you're rather transparently trying to weasel out of actually
presenting anything, which makes it obvious that you know you don't
have anything.
Prove me wrong, right here:
Ralph
Since you've never provided any, Assman, how would we know what is
available? Gee, you're stupid.
The Chief Instigator
> On Mar 22, 7:08?pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 2:35?pm, Prophet <el...@priest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 22, 1:49?pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > > Responding to Prophet:
>>
>> > > > "Then Jeremiah the prophet said Behold! there shall come amongst you a
>> > > > twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
>>
>> > > And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
>> > > did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
>> > > "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
>> > > one?"
>>
>> > > (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>>
>> > > --
>> > > *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
>> > > *=( For all your UK news needs.
>>
>> > Don't you want to save your soul?
>>
>> death of the brain, or that any such thing as the "soul" even exists.
>>
>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>> BAAWA Knight
>> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
She's a bit more real than you've been in your futile crusade.
> WHY would you expect *tangible* evidence for something that is NOT
> tangible?
...which implies you're making up more fairy tales.
> Don't you guys realize this is the lamest argument that the atheists
> make?
>
> Just because you cannot hold it and measure it does not mean it is not
> real.
The fact that your supposed gods have yet to be confirmed seems to have
evaded you.
> There is not going to be scientific evidence for the soul because
> science only deals with the natural world.
>
> Your soul goes beyond what can be perceived with physical senses so
> scientific tools will be useless and, as limited as man's senses are.
>
> Which BTW are not as good as your cat's senses. The animals on
> SirLanka knew to run. The humans did not. And you expect a man-made
> science to be fully accurate?
>
> Surely you jest....
Surely, you're addicted to your chosen delusion. I realized that much
before I had to use two numbers to express my age, mostly from the antics of
the late founder of Oral Roberts University while I lived in the same city,
50-odd years ago, when his church was still downtown.
Mike Jones
Hooo boy! This one is a keeper! %)
>
> I can see you are not convinced.
Well, du-UH?
>
> Let's look at this again, shall we?
I'd rather not bother.
>
> From the charter:
Oh dear, he's going there again.
>
> "This group will be unmoderated."
>
> Yet you insist on your brand of moderation by telling me the topic is
> not germane to AA.
No. I insist you are a cross-posting twat, and rebuke you accordingly.
What? You thought "unmoderated" meant "anything goes, without comment"?
What a hand-wringing Uriah Heap clone of a twat you are to be sure!
>
> "Cross-posting should not be discouraged."
>
> Yet you insist that I do not cross post.
Nope. I insist you are a moronic godbotian cross-posting twat, who
deliberately sets out to annoy by proselytizing your religion on a
newsgroup specifically dedicated to matters related to atheism, despite
sufficient data being available to clearly indicate this kind of
behaviour is indeed unwelcome here, and I rebuke you accordingly.
>
>
> "Knowledge is Holistic"
Nope. Your guff is weapons-grade bullshit though, and you know it.
>
> But you want to silence what you do not want to hear. Which means you
> will never be whole in knowledge.
I don't want to silence you, I just want you to fuck off this NG with
your twatitudes about fictional characters from you favorite Big Book of
Bullshit as if there were any credibility for them whatsoever. (Plus, its
fun pointing out what a twat you are, and seeing you confirm it.)
>
>
> At this point one would have to ask if you really take your atheism
> seriously. Atheist for the most part are quite intelligent. That is why
> they question everything and demand evidence.
"take your atheism seriously" ??? WTF are you smoking dude?
You're pulling this out of your arse as you go, aren't you?
>
> You OTOH desire to turn a blind eye to the other side. My side. The side
> that gives alternate information and provides you with holistic
> knowledge on the subject of atheism/theism.
Must - not - do - bwahaha... Slipping... Must - not...
>
> What are you afraid of? That i might be right?
You? YOU? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, now look what you made me do! You TWAT!
Note that you failed to get one single detail even remotely correct, and
did I mention you're a twat?
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Xan Du
> Responding to Prophet:
>
<snip>
>> At this point one would have to ask if you really take your atheism
>> seriously. Atheist for the most part are quite intelligent. That is why
>> they question everything and demand evidence.
>
>
> "take your atheism seriously" ??? WTF are you smoking dude?
The same bong that John toked on while in exile on Patmos?
> You're pulling this out of your arse as you go, aren't you?
I know a doctor who performs cephalo-rectalectomies ...
>> You OTOH desire to turn a blind eye to the other side. My side. The side
>> that gives alternate information and provides you with holistic
>> knowledge on the subject of atheism/theism.
>
>
> Must - not - do - bwahaha... Slipping... Must - not...
Oh please ...
>> What are you afraid of? That i might be right?
>
>
> You? YOU? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Oh, now look what you made me do! You TWAT!
>
>
> Note that you failed to get one single detail even remotely correct, and
> did I mention you're a twat?
I think you did. But I am giggling.
-Xan
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why won't you state what type of evidence is acceptable to you?
Prophet
THAT would be Y O U
> Mark Evans- Hide quoted text -
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Evidence is acceptable to me.
Why do you insist on asking questions to evade me? You know you have no
evidence.
Xan Du
budget my ample, but still limited, polemic skills and resort to
wisecracks. They're meant well though.
-Xan
Wombat
> On Mar 23, 11:03 am, Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 4:32 am, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Responding to Prophet:
> > > QUOTE: "a forum for the discussion of all aspects of atheism"
>
> > > Not "proselytize religion", or "preach your debunked fantasy stories",
> > > etc. Cross-posting your twatitudes is whats being poked at with a sharp
> > > stick here, and you know it, because you are an established twat of the
> > > highest twatness. Your obvious attempt at a classic distraction-dodge
> > > noted BTW.
>
> > > I strongly suspect sports trolling here, as no godbot could be this
> > > deliberately determined to be a twat.
>
> > > It sure looks like the above prophecy is coming true though! %)
>
> > > --
> > > *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> > > *=( For all your UK news needs.-
>
> > Assman needs all the attention he can muster after getting his dumbass
> > booted from TO- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah. They were begining to believe me and the truth about the one
> true God. So they had to silence me.
In your dreams, Twatman.
>
> Of course they ban me in vain. I can come up with a thousand IP addys
> and even more email addys.
Nymshifting is a bannable offence. How many was it you used during
your time in T.O.?
>
> I choose not to return.
Not until you apologise to the moderator, loser.
>
> You need my help more.
What a joke.
Wombat
Kadaitcha Man
Ye tweeted:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 17:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Prophet <el...@priest.com>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>Why won't you state what type of evidence is acceptable to you?
>>
> Evidence is acceptable to me.
>
> Why do you insist on asking questions to evade me? You know you have no
> evidence.
He isn't the one doing the evading. You are.
For example, would you take the testimony of the personal experiences of
several billion people as evidence?
I guess not.
--
I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
variation:
God = Metaphysical X
Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
Mike Jones
Prophet
If you tell me what you consider to BE evidence i will provide some.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
If your imaginary diety is all that you say he is, then he already
knows how to prove himself. I suggest you consult him in on the
matter.
Prophet
I like these knee jerk reactions from you.
They let me know, that you know, I am right.
Prophet
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 22, 9:11 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>> >> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Prophet <el...@priest.com>
> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 22, 1:49 pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> Responding to Prophet:
>
> >> >> >> > twat of such twatitude non shall be left untainted by his twattings!"
>
> >> >> >> And lo, it came to pass that indeed, a twat of such incredible twatitude
> >> >> >> did come amongst the people, and they cried out in their twatification
> >> >> >> "Where oh where is a decent deity to strike down this twat when you need
> >> >> >> one?"
>
> >> >> >> (Pssst! Dude! You're a cross-posting twat, and everybody knows it!)
>
> >> >> >> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> >> >> >> *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> >> >> >Don't you want to save your soul?
>
> >> >> There's no evidence that souls exist. What do you think saving it means?
>
> >> >> If it means that I am stuck next to intentionally ignorant fools like
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> claim to have evidence, then try to weasel out of saying what it is.
>
> Present what *you* think constitutes evidence, and let people judge it
> for themselves.
>
> >then claim anything outside this box of science is not real or does
> >not exist.
>
> >universe that science cannot explain. Why is that?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why can't ANY of you simply answer the question.
What do YOU consider to be an acceptable form of evidence?
If I can meet your standard of evidence, I will do so.
What good does it do for me to provide my evidence if I do not even
know what you consider to be evidence? That would be like pissing in a
river to try and make it rise.
If you asked me to sell you a car wouldn't you want me to show you the
right color? Same principal at work here.
But for some reason all of the atheists run for cover when asked this
qiestion. The rest do as you have done and accuse me of what you
actually do yourself.
So what are you guys afraid of? It is JUST a question. A question that
should be answered if you want accurate information.
You do want the truth, right?
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have not read the book have you?
Prophet
Me too. But there are several types of evidence. What type do you
consider to be good enough to show God is real?
>
> Why do you insist on asking questions to evade me? You know you
> have no evidence.
Sure I do. Will you accept it without knowing what kind it is?
Jimbo
>
I have read numerous books, including the Quran and the Bible, be more
specific and please draw relevance between that and my previous
statement.
Prophet
I will.
As soon as you tell me what type of evidence you find acceptable.
because there are many types of evidence.
Jimbo
Your imaginary sky-daddy already has this information, if he is all
that you say he is. Consult him.
Jimbo
It is a rather bizarre request, isn't it? We ask that he prove his
assertion, so he asks that we set the parameters for that proof... I
wonder if he'll ask us to make his arguments for him as well.
raven1
wrote:
Further weaseling duly noted.
Fact is, you will *never* present any kind of evidence, because you
know you don't have any. If you thought you did, it wouldn't matter to
you what anyone else finds "acceptable", you'd be presenting what
*you* thought constituted evidence. The fact that you don't do so
makes you a liar, a coward, or both.
Syd
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Tell me what type of evidence will you accept.
You'll do anything to avoid posting this 'evidence,' won't you, fundy
troll?
PDW
Syd
Why won't you shut up and cough up this 'evidence,' asshole?
PDW
Syd
Ralph
He probably has, that is why he isn't counting on your deity to show
himself.
Scott Balneaves
OK, I'll bite.
> What do YOU consider to be an acceptable form of evidence?
I would consider:
1) A repeatable, verifiable phenomenon which could be directly attributable
to an act of faith, that COULD NOT be explained by any other method.
I.e. Mark 11:24 tells us that whatever we pray for, we get. Therefore,
sudden outbreaks of world peace, or limbs growing back after being prayed
for in a controlled setting would be acceptable.
2) Providing some kind of empirical evidence for a soul.
3) Providing some kind of empirical existence of God.
> If I can meet your standard of evidence, I will do so.
OK, I'll take you at your word.
> What good does it do for me to provide my evidence if I do not even
> know what you consider to be evidence? That would be like pissing in a
> river to try and make it rise.
I suspect you will be unable to produce any such evidence. If anyone could,
in the 10's of thousands of years of human religious thought, then we
wouldn't ever talk about the *belief* in God, about *faith* in God, but
rather, the *fact* of God.
However, maybe you're the first in history to have something. If so, you'll
set the world on it's ear.
> So what are you guys afraid of? It is JUST a question. A question that
> should be answered if you want accurate information.
Asked and answered.
> You do want the truth, right?
Sure do.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>>
>> >What kind of evidence will you accept?
>>
>> Why does *every* theist eventually try to pull this nonsense? You
>> claim to have evidence, then try to weasel out of saying what it is.
>>
>> Present what *you* think constitutes evidence, and let people judge it
>> for themselves.
>>
>> >As it stand now you have drawn a box around yourself with science and
>> >then claim anything outside this box of science is not real or does
>> >not exist.
>>
>> >but we know this is not true because there is much phenomena in the
>> >universe that science cannot explain. Why is that?
>>
>> No one claims that science can explain everything. Now let's see your
>> evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Why not answer the question for a change atheist?
>
>Tell me what type of evidence will you accept.
ANYTHING THAT LEADS TO IT AS A CONCLUSION, imbecile.
What part of that are you too stupid to understand?
We're not mind readers, we have no idea what you think you've got.
But if you actually had anything you would not need transparent
copouts like your stupid question.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>> Why won't you state what type of evidence is acceptable to you?
>
>Why won't you shut up and cough up this 'evidence,' asshole?
>
>PDW
You answered youself with the last word of that sentence.
Mike Jones
[...]
>>
>> > Why won't you state what type of evidence is acceptable to you?
>>
>> STEP - AWAY - FROM - THE - BONG!
>>
>>
> It is a rather bizarre request, isn't it? We ask that he prove his
> assertion, so he asks that we set the parameters for that proof... I
> wonder if he'll ask us to make his arguments for him as well.
Probably. He seems to be using this NG as a test for his twat-scripts.
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
Go to a biker bar and try this twat-routine close to closing time.
Then get back to us about what happened. >:)
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
[...]
>> Again, you're rather transparently trying to weasel out of actually
>> presenting anything, which makes it obvious that you know you don't
>> have anything.
>>
>> Prove me wrong, right here:
>
> I will.
>
> As soon as you tell me what type of evidence you find acceptable.
> because there are many types of evidence.
You're in insurance sales aren't you? Or double glazing? Used cars?
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Jones
[...]
>> >Why won't you state what type of evidence is acceptable to you?
>>
>> Evidence is acceptable to me.
>
> Me too. But there are several types of evidence. What type do you
> consider to be good enough to show God is real?
>
>
>> Why do you insist on asking questions to evade me? You know you have no
>> evidence.
>
> Sure I do. Will you accept it without knowing what kind it is?
When do you get to the "trust me" point where somebody somehow has to
drop their pants and bend over? This is clearly where this is heading.
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
Mike Franklin
> A bunch of questions of prophet that he ignored
I don't blame you, [M]adman, for ignoring my questions; examining your
beliefs in such detail must be quite unsettling for you.
Mike
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you read the books, and were paying attention, you would know He
Has proved himself.
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
I already said I will provide the type of evidence you will accept.
But I have to know what type you will in fact accept.
Are you afraid to say?
Prophet
>
> - Show quoted text -
That may be all YOU want, what about raven? Raven may have a varying
defination of exactly what is valid evidence.
archie dux
I'm not afraid to say. Meeting the long-established Skyeyes
Challenge -- causing Brenda's guy's amputated
legs to regrow, thus demonstrating that Jesus was
serious when He said that anything asked in
His name would be granted -- that would be
entirely sufficient evidence for me.
archie
Prophet
The Catholic Church is loaded with verified miracles meeting most of
your criteria. Where have you been? But the "controlled setting" part
is placing a scientific condition on something that is not natural.
Science can only measure the natural. So you ask for evidence that I
suspect you already know cannot be provided so that you do not have to
admit miracles have and will continue to happen. Unless of course you
believe that millions of people, spanning thousands of years, that
have either had a miracle or witnessed a miracle are all lying. Which
is highly unlikely.
There are even modern day faith-based medical miracles that doctors
state are best explained by divine intervention.
All of this is readily searchable on the internet.
BTW. You atheist always leave out the important details. Sure. That is
what is says in the book of Mark. But Jesus also placed a condition
it. Read the entire sentence.
"24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that
you have received it, and it will be yours."
Many people just don't believe. Like you.
> 2) Providing some kind of empirical evidence for a soul.
> 3) Providing some kind of empirical existence of God.
How can impericle evidence be gathered on the supernatural when
science can only measure the natural world.
Got any other types of evidence you will accept? I'll see if i have
it.
[cut]
Xan Du
My standard is personal appearance. Failing that, I'd go for news
articles from multiple outlets with a high degree of reliability as
demonstrated by their past records.
>> Why do you insist on asking questions to evade me? You know you
>> have no evidence.
>
> Sure I do. Will you accept it without knowing what kind it is?
Go for it.
-Xan
Xan Du
-Xan
Prophet
Jesus loves his Bikers man.
They are true free spirits.
You OTOH are a k0ok.
But Jesus loves you too though.
>
> --
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> *=( For all your UK news needs.- Hide quoted text -
archie dux
Excuse me? You are now claiming that if limbs were to
miraculously grow back, "science" could not measure
and document that phenomenon?
*I* could do that. So I suspect it's not beyond the
capabilitiesof the folks at the Mayo Clinic to
do the same.
Not that even that would be necessary -- if I were
familiar with someone in their armless and/or
legless state, seeing and feeling their regrown limbs
would easily convince me. No "measuring"
required.
archie
archie dux
And since you, the believer, will be doing the praying, and not
the skeptics, that will present no problem.
`course, this sort of study has already been done, and
a number of times at that. The results? In some categories,
the people who were prayed for did better -- a percent or two better
than average. And in other categories they did worse.
If we're talking about God and miracles here, I'm not interested
in a God who can only sway the outcome by small fractions
for the better -- or worse.
archie
raven1
wrote:
>
>I already said I will provide the type of evidence you will accept.
>But I have to know what type you will in fact accept.
And yet more weaseling. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
>Are you afraid to say?
You're certainly afraid to state your case. Why?
I'm willing to hear whatever you have to say, and judge it on a
point-by-point basis, with an open mind. You, however, are unwilling
to provide evidence that you claim to possess. Again, that's
indicative of dishonesty or cowardice on your part.