Pope's legacy is secure

[J]

http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/






Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope�s legacy is
secure:



Religion for Pope Benedict XVI is as much a public issue as it is a
private one. In 2008, he warned American bishops against �the subtle
influence of secularism,� holding that �any tendency to treat religion
as a private matter must be resisted.�

The pope made it clear that religious freedom was not only a God-given
right, it was �the path to peace.�

He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
leads to violence).

The pope reached out to dissidents on the right and the left, seeking
to bring them to communion. Not all his efforts succeeded, but his
attempts were noble.

No one did more to successfully address the problem of priestly sexual
abuse than Joseph Ratzinger. Just weeks before he was chosen to be the
new pope, he spoke bluntly about this issue: �How much filth there is
in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to
belong entirely to Him!�

Addressing those who still blame Jews for the death of Christ, the
pope settled the issue with authority by pointing out that no one
should be blamed since, as he argued, the crucifixion was necessary
for God�s plan of universal redemption.

The pope�s many references to what he called �the dictatorship of
relativism� were a constant reminder that one of the greatest threats
to freedom today is the abandonment of the search for truth.

Pope Benedict XVI�s willingness to step aside comes as a surprise this
Monday morning. What is not surprising is his humility. Indeed, it is
one of his most defining characteristics, one that separates him from
today�s ego-centric public figures.











J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
> leads to violence).

How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
elimiation of Faith?

Faith requires that you believe in things you have no reason to, because
evidence for those things is missing. Reason requires a strict adherence to
using evidence, observation, and experiment to determine how the natural world
works, and things for which there are no evidence are to be treated as things
you don't know about AT BEST, and non-existant otherwise.

--
__ _ | Hypermediocrity
(_ |_) | -- Fischerspooner "Emerge"
__)|_) |

[Dom]

On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>
> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope s legacy is
> secure:

It is quite possible that Pope Benedict XVI's enduring legacy may be
his decision to retire while he still possesses his faculties.

It was absolutely appalling that John Paul II did not resign while he
still had the ability to do so, before he became incapacitated. When
he gave his last public address to the crowd in St. Peter's Square, he
had to be wheeled to the window, and he drooled incomprehensibly as he
attempted to read his message, before his hangers-on had to quickly
wheel him back from the window. It reminded me of the ailing Leonid
Brezhnev who had to make a final appearance atop Lenin's tomb, in Nov.
1982, a few days before he died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2juOdTegE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzzCGP5oQWI

[Syd M.]

On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:

> http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>
> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope’s legacy is
> secure:
>
>

His legacy of obstruction of justice, arrogance, intolerance, and
general hate sure is secure, IBen.

PDW

[Dakota]

On 2/11/2013 3:44 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>>

>> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope�s legacy is

>> secure:
>>
>>
>
> His legacy of obstruction of justice, arrogance, intolerance, and
> general hate sure is secure, IBen.
>
> PDW
>

I'll always remember Benny as the first Pope who had been a proud
member of the Hitler fan club as a child and who got to watch his
priests and Bishops raise their arms in salute while repeatedly
shouting, "Heil Hitler!" Benny sure must have made Nazi-loving Pope
Pius XII proud.

Have a nice day, J.

[duke]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
>> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
>> leads to violence).
>
>How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
>requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
>elimiation of Faith?

Wrong - totally wrong.

Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
Hebrews 11
Faith in Action
1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
evidence is overwhelming.

>Faith requires that you believe in things you have no reason to, because
>evidence for those things is missing. Reason requires a strict adherence to
>using evidence, observation, and experiment to determine how the natural world
>works, and things for which there are no evidence are to be treated as things
>you don't know about AT BEST, and non-existant otherwise.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[duke]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:42:50 -0800 (PST), Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:

>On Feb 11, 3:03�pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>>
>> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope s legacy is
>> secure:
>
>It is quite possible that Pope Benedict XVI's enduring legacy may be
>his decision to retire while he still possesses his faculties.

Nah - cleaning out the pedophile problem.

[plainolamerican]

> jdyou...@ymail.com

the pope s legacy is
secure

---
a myth believing pointy hatted man god.

[Syd M.]

On Feb 11, 5:38 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:42:50 -0800 (PST), Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>
> >> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope s legacy is
> >> secure:
>
> >It is quite possible that Pope Benedict XVI's enduring legacy may be
> >his decision to retire while he still possesses his faculties.
>
> Nah - cleaning out the pedophile problem.
>
>

And when does your precious RCC plan to start, asshole?

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 11, 5:28 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 3:44 PM, Syd M. wrote:> On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>

> >> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope’s legacy is

> >> secure:
>
> > His legacy of obstruction of justice, arrogance, intolerance, and
> > general hate sure is secure, IBen.
>
> > PDW
>
> I'll always remember Benny as the first Pope who had been a proud
> member of the Hitler fan club as a child and who got to watch his
> priests and Bishops raise their arms in salute while repeatedly
> shouting, "Heil Hitler!" Benny sure must have made Nazi-loving Pope
> Pius XII proud.
>
> Have a nice day, J.

Heh. No doubt.

PDW

[The Chief Instigator]

I really believe he did his best. Perhaps the next pontiff will help
him to be canonized.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Yep, his legacy as the chief enabler of pedophilia.

--
JD

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

[nature bats_last]

On Feb 11, 1:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>

> Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why thepope’s legacy issecure:

> jdyou...@ymail.com

God, to be honest I don't know if You exist or not.

But if you are there, and if you are hearing me, I plead
with you to grant me one tiny boon: that you will never
never never ever allow Bill Donohue to "help" me out.

Even in death I the humiliation would be more than
I could bear. Thank you.

Amen.

NBL

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
>>> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
>>> leads to violence).
>>
>>How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
>>requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
>>elimiation of Faith?
>
> Wrong - totally wrong.
>
> Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
> Hebrews 11
> Faith in Action
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
> not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

Right; confidence in what we hope for (without evidence) and assurance about
what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence, that
assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're taking on faith.

> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
> evidence is overwhelming.

Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without proof)" is
like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming (without any fluid of any
kind)"

duke, try THINKING every once in a while. Cripes even your OWN RUDDY CHURCH
FATHERS have declared Reason and Faith incompatible. Ever heard of a guy
called Tertullian? Kind of important to the Catholic church.

> You can't fix stupid.

There's no fixing you, then.

--
__ _ | If evil be spoken of you and it be true, correct yourself,
(_ |_) | if it be a lie, laugh at it.
__)|_) | -- Epictetus

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qesih8pq8fc4p0g56...@4ax.com

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav
> <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about
>>> the uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith
>>> also leads to violence).
>>
>> How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by
>> definition, requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by
>> definition, requires the elimiation of Faith?
>
> Wrong - totally wrong.
>
> Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
> Hebrews 11
> Faith in Action
> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about
> what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
>
> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in
> God. The evidence is overwhelming.
>

Blind twit.
That verse says nothing about Logic and Reason or overwhelming evidence,
only faith.
Get your eyes checked.


--
Religions breed hypocrisy, ignorance and self-righteousness.

If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it
contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon
the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.
~Leonardo da Vinci

[THE COLONEL]

"The Chief Instigator" <deadpa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:531afc66-7731-4daa...@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:03 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.catholicleague.org/popes-legacy-is-secure/
>

> > Bill Donohue offers seven good reasons why the pope�s legacy is

> > secure:
>
> His legacy of obstruction of justice, arrogance, intolerance, and
> general hate sure is secure, IBen.
>
> PDW

I really believe he did his best. Perhaps the next pontiff will help
him to be canonized.

Nobody cares what you think, retard.

[duke]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:57:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>>>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
>>>> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
>>>> leads to violence).
>>>
>>>How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
>>>requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
>>>elimiation of Faith?
>>
>> Wrong - totally wrong.
>>
>> Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
>> Hebrews 11
>> Faith in Action
>> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
>> not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
>
>Right; confidence in what we hope for (without evidence)

Nope, without proof. We have evidence galore

> and assurance about
>what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence, that
>assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're taking on faith.

Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme creator can
do that. If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.

>> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
>> evidence is overwhelming.

>Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without proof)" is
>like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming (without any fluid of any
>kind)"

We see evidence, we use logic, we apply reason, and yes, the existence of God is
beyond question.

>duke, try THINKING every once in a while.

Thinking about what? According to the astrophysicists, 13.7 billion year ago,
there was no universe, and no place for one to show up. Yet it did.

> Cripes even your OWN RUDDY CHURCH
>FATHERS have declared Reason and Faith incompatible. Ever heard of a guy
>called Tertullian? Kind of important to the Catholic church.

Logic and reason are solid foundations for faith.

>> You can't fix stupid.
>There's no fixing you, then.

I'm perfect as is.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************

You can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[plainolamerican]

On Feb 12, 11:15 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:57:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
> >In alt.atheism duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

---
only a religious myth believer would imagine it's true.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:57:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>>>>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
>>>>> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
>>>>> leads to violence).
>>>>
>>>>How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
>>>>requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
>>>>elimiation of Faith?
>>>
>>> Wrong - totally wrong.
>>>
>>> Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
>>> Hebrews 11
>>> Faith in Action
>>> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
>>> not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
>>
>>Right; confidence in what we hope for (without evidence)
>
> Nope, without proof. We have evidence galore

What evidence? You've been asked this repeatedly.

>> and assurance about
>>what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence, that
>>assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're taking on faith.
>
> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme creator can
> do that.

How do you know this? On what do you base this statement?

> If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.

I'm currently reading Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Why don't
you do as well, and we can compare notes? Hint: Lawrence's stuff is backed up
by experimental observation.

>>> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
>>> evidence is overwhelming.
>
>>Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without proof)" is
>>like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming (without any fluid of any
>>kind)"
>
> We see evidence, we use logic, we apply reason, and yes, the existence of God is
> beyond question.

Again, what evidence?

>>duke, try THINKING every once in a while.
>
> Thinking about what? According to the astrophysicists, 13.7 billion year ago,
> there was no universe, and no place for one to show up. Yet it did.

Sure. Why does that mean Goddidit? Can't it have happened through some
naturalistic method? How do you know it didn't? What research have you don't
along those lines; you've read the bible, or parts of it. Don't you owe it to
yourself to read what the opposition has to say? What books have you read on
cosmoslogy?

>> Cripes even your OWN RUDDY CHURCH
>>FATHERS have declared Reason and Faith incompatible. Ever heard of a guy
>>called Tertullian? Kind of important to the Catholic church.
>
> Logic and reason are solid foundations for faith.

Not according to Tertullian. However, it's not surprising you don't know
anything about your own ruddy church.

>>> You can't fix stupid.
>>There's no fixing you, then.
>
> I'm perfect as is.

In your humble opinion.

--
__ _ | Everything should be made as simple as possible,
(_ |_) | but not simpler.
__)|_) | -- Albert Einstein

[Father Haskell]

On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness.  Only a supreme creator can
> do that.  If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.

Then a previous creator had to have created that creator, which means
he's hardly "supreme."

[Oko Tillo]

On Feb 12, 3:06 pm, sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:

> In alt.atheism duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:57:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
> >>In alt.atheism duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
>

If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
there must have been some Creator. Then move to the
next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
have been his own personal choice of god. Why not some
other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
anything we will ever imagine?

Do that, and you will find that all pretense of "logic"
and "reason" and "evidence" will vanish like the mist --
and all his subsequent replies will each boil down to,
in essence, "Because".


Oko

[duke]

>something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme creator can
>do that

>only a religious myth believer would imagine it's true.

Only a person of God knows it's absolutely true. There is no alternative.

[duke]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:06:46 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 03:57:59 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.atheism duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:15:02 +0000 (UTC), sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.atheism J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He knew religion could be abused, leading even to violence. His much
>>>>>> misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the
>>>>>> uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also
>>>>>> leads to violence).
>>>>>
>>>>>How, exactly, does one unite Reason and Faith, when Faith, by definition,
>>>>>requires the suspension of Reason, and Reason, by definition, requires the
>>>>>elimiation of Faith?
>>>>
>>>> Wrong - totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Hebrews 11:1-2 (New International Version)
>>>> Hebrews 11
>>>> Faith in Action
>>>> 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do
>>>> not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
>>>
>>>Right; confidence in what we hope for (without evidence)
>>
>> Nope, without proof. We have evidence galore
>
>What evidence? You've been asked this repeatedly.

And I've repeatedly answered - Creation - something from nothing into
nothingness.

If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the existence
of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, let's hear it.

>>> and assurance about
>>>what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence, that
>>>assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're taking on faith.

>> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme creator can
>> do that.
>How do you know this? On what do you base this statement?

Pure logic, pure reason, pure common sense.

>> If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.

>I'm currently reading Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Why don't
>you do as well, and we can compare notes? Hint: Lawrence's stuff is backed up
>by experimental observation.

God can't be experimentally confirmed.

>>>> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
>>>> evidence is overwhelming.
>>
>>>Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without proof)" is
>>>like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming (without any fluid of any
>>>kind)"
>>
>> We see evidence, we use logic, we apply reason, and yes, the existence of God is
>> beyond question.

>Again, what evidence?

Again, my same answer.

>>>duke, try THINKING every once in a while.

>> Thinking about what? According to the astrophysicists, 13.7 billion year ago,
>> there was no universe, and no place for one to show up. Yet it did.

>Sure. Why does that mean Goddidit?

Waiting on a better, or even equal, answer from you. You already have my input.
What's yours?

> Can't it have happened through some
>naturalistic method? How do you know it didn't? What research have you don't
>along those lines; you've read the bible, or parts of it. Don't you owe it to
>yourself to read what the opposition has to say? What books have you read on
>cosmoslogy?

What can be natural when there is nothing to be natural from? You keep
forgetting - there was absolutely nothing in the beginning..

>>> Cripes even your OWN RUDDY CHURCH
>>>FATHERS have declared Reason and Faith incompatible. Ever heard of a guy
>>>called Tertullian? Kind of important to the Catholic church.

>> Logic and reason are solid foundations for faith.

>Not according to Tertullian. However, it's not surprising you don't know
>anything about your own ruddy church.

You propose an alternative to creation and I'll listen.

>>>> You can't fix stupid.
>>>There's no fixing you, then.
>> I'm perfect as is.
>In your humble opinion.

Yes, you can't beat me. Heeheehee.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************

You can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
>and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
>provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
>there must have been some Creator. Then move to the
>next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
>have been his own personal choice of god.

Creator is his game; God is his name.

> Why not some
>other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
>know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
>anything we will ever imagine?

God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".

>Do that, and you will find that all pretense of "logic"
>and "reason" and "evidence" will vanish like the mist --
>and all his subsequent replies will each boil down to,
>in essence, "Because".

I'm still here, oko. Heeheehee.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************

You can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[plainolamerican]

a person of God
---
is a religious myth believer to ignore.

[duke]

Hey, if you think so, go for it.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> > I'm perfect as is.
>>
>> In your humble opinion.
>
> If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
> there must have been some Creator. Then move to the
> next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> have been his own personal choice of god. Why not some
> other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> anything we will ever imagine?
>
> Do that, and you will find that all pretense of "logic"
> and "reason" and "evidence" will vanish like the mist --
> and all his subsequent replies will each boil down to,
> in essence, "Because".

Oh, been down that long and winding road :)

--
__ _ | Silence is safer than speech.
(_ |_) | -- Epictetus
__)|_) |

[sbalneav]

Something from nothing *into nothingness*? That last bit hasn't happened yet,
duke; the something is still here. And again; science is working on
alternative, naturalistic explainations. So the universe itself ISN'T
necessarily evidence that an intelligent creator exists.

> If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the existence
> of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, let's hear it.

There are several. Big Bang theory, being kicked off by subatomic fluctuations
in vacuum state being one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

This is discussed in LMK's book I mentioned.

>>>> and assurance about
>>>>what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence, that
>>>>assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're taking on faith.
>
>>> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme creator can
>>> do that.
>>How do you know this? On what do you base this statement?
>
> Pure logic, pure reason, pure common sense.

Please outline your logic that ONLY an intelligent creator can create the
universe, and that no other naturalistic method is possible.

>>> If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
>
>>I'm currently reading Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing". Why don't
>>you do as well, and we can compare notes? Hint: Lawrence's stuff is backed up
>>by experimental observation.
>
> God can't be experimentally confirmed.

Why not? He overtly trespasses into this universe, and performs miracles,
supposedly. Shouldn't they be detectable?

>>>>> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe in God. The
>>>>> evidence is overwhelming.
>>>
>>>>Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without proof)" is
>>>>like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming (without any fluid of any
>>>>kind)"
>>>
>>> We see evidence, we use logic, we apply reason, and yes, the existence of God is
>>> beyond question.
>
>>Again, what evidence?
>
> Again, my same answer.

"Cuz I think so" isn't an answer.

>>>>duke, try THINKING every once in a while.
>
>>> Thinking about what? According to the astrophysicists, 13.7 billion year ago,
>>> there was no universe, and no place for one to show up. Yet it did.
>
>>Sure. Why does that mean Goddidit?
>
> Waiting on a better, or even equal, answer from you. You already have my input.
> What's yours?

Gave it already. Even told you the book I'm currently reading.

>> Can't it have happened through some
>>naturalistic method? How do you know it didn't? What research have you don't
>>along those lines; you've read the bible, or parts of it. Don't you owe it to
>>yourself to read what the opposition has to say? What books have you read on
>>cosmoslogy?
>
> What can be natural when there is nothing to be natural from? You keep
> forgetting - there was absolutely nothing in the beginning..

Incorrect, even using your cosmological model; there was God, supposedly.
Where did *he* come from?

>>>> Cripes even your OWN RUDDY CHURCH
>>>>FATHERS have declared Reason and Faith incompatible. Ever heard of a guy
>>>>called Tertullian? Kind of important to the Catholic church.
>
>>> Logic and reason are solid foundations for faith.
>
>>Not according to Tertullian. However, it's not surprising you don't know
>>anything about your own ruddy church.
>
> You propose an alternative to creation and I'll listen.

That didn't address my point. And I have proposed an alternative; what
scientists are currently researching.

>>>>> You can't fix stupid.
>>>>There's no fixing you, then.
>>> I'm perfect as is.
>>In your humble opinion.
>
> Yes, you can't beat me. Heeheehee.

Dude, you and I ain't even in the same contest. You'll find that out sooner or
later.

--
__ _ | If you're rich you can buy books. If you're poor,
(_ |_) | you need a library.
__)|_) | -- John Kenneth Galbraith

[�RLMeasures]

In article <s2jnh8togfnct8ucs...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:33:01 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 12, 12:15�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. �Only a supreme
creator can
> >> do that. �If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
> >
> >Then a previous creator had to have created that creator, which means
> >he's hardly "supreme."
>
> Hey, if you think so, go for it.
>

� he has a point.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:bhinh8te3boh52o4i...@4ax.com

Something from nothing into nothingness??
Bahaha.
That makes no sense, fool.
Take your meds next time.

>
> If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the
> existence of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago,
> let's hear it.
>
>>>> and assurance about
>>>> what we do not see. What REASON do you have for that confidence,
>>>> that assurance? You can't say "God", since THAT'S what you're
>>>> taking on faith.
>
>>> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness. Only a supreme
>>> creator can do that.
>> How do you know this? On what do you base this statement?
>
> Pure logic, pure reason, pure common sense.
>

Bahaha!
Please stop. Its too much!

>
>>> If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
>
>> I'm currently reading Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing".
>> Why don't you do as well, and we can compare notes? Hint:
>> Lawrence's stuff is backed up by experimental observation.
>
> God can't be experimentally confirmed.
>
>>>>> Logic and Reason (without proof) is the exact reason we believe
>>>>> in God. The evidence is overwhelming.
>>>
>>>> Your word salad is utterly ridiculous. "Logic and Reason (without
>>>> proof)" is like saying "breathing (in a vacuum)" or "Swimming
>>>> (without any fluid of any kind)"
>>>
>>> We see evidence, we use logic, we apply reason, and yes, the
>>> existence of God is beyond question.
>
>> Again, what evidence?
>
> Again, my same answer.
>

Again we laugh at your dopey sweeping claims.

[Syd M.]

On Feb 13, 12:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>
> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>

Empty assertion.

> >  Why not some
> >other?  Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> >anything we will ever imagine?
>
> God is almighty.  There can be only one "almighty".
>

Empty assertion.

> >Do that, and you will find that all pretense of "logic"
> >and "reason" and "evidence" will vanish like the mist --
> >and all his subsequent replies will each boil down to,
> >in essence, "Because".
>
> I'm still here, oko.  Heeheehee.
>
>

Giggling madly won't win you any points, Dork.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 13, 12:24 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:33:01 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>

> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness.  Only a supreme creator can
> >> do that.  If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
>
> >Then a previous creator had to have created that creator, which means
> >he's hardly "supreme."
>
> Hey, if you think so, go for it.
>
>

Ah ah ah, Dork.
YOU prove that your 'god' is the only one around.

PDW

[nature bats_last]

On Feb 13, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>
> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>

;
> > Why not some
> >other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> >anything we will ever imagine?

;
> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".

"Almighty" in the sense of "There is nothing
He cannot do"? Any thing or act I can imagine,
He can create? Nothing lies beyond his abilities?


NBL

[nature bats_last]

> > I'm still here, oko. =A0Heeheehee.

;

> Giggling madly won't win you any points, Dork.

Neither will his poor reading skills: Tillo never said
that Duke would vanish.

Only his veneer of rational debate.


NBL

[Oko Tillo]

On Feb 13, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>
> Creator is his game; God is his name.

;
> > Why not some
> >other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> >anything we will ever imagine?

;
> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".

You may now proceed with your "logic", "evidence",
"reason", and/or "common sense" in defense of your
claim that the god of your particular taste in
religions is in fact that "almighty God":



Oko

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<8b02a0e4-2d14-4e63...@hl5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
nature bats_last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 10:24=A0am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.co=

> m>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> > >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> > >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that

> > >there must have been some Creator. =A0Then move to the

> > >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> > >have been his own personal choice of god.
> >
> > Creator is his game; God is his name.
> >
>
> ;
> > > Why not some
> > >other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> > >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> > >anything we will ever imagine?
>
> ;
> > God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".
>
> "Almighty" in the sense of "There is nothing
> He cannot do"? Any thing or act I can imagine,
> He can create? Nothing lies beyond his abilities?
>

� He for damn sure can't change history.

[duke]

That's why I ignore you.

[duke]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:59:23 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 13, 10:24�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
>> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
>> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
>> >there must have been some Creator. �Then move to the
>> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
>> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>>
>> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>>
>
>;
>> > Why not some
>> >other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
>> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
>> >anything we will ever imagine?
>
>;
>> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".
>
>"Almighty" in the sense of "There is nothing
>He cannot do"?

What do you think? He willed the universe into existence.

> Any thing or act I can imagine,
>He can create? Nothing lies beyond his abilities?

[duke]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:29:35 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 13, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
>> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
>> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
>> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
>> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
>> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>>
>> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>
>;
>> > Why not some
>> >other? Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
>> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
>> >anything we will ever imagine?
>
>;
>> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".
>
>You may now proceed with your "logic", "evidence",
>"reason", and/or "common sense" in defense of your
>claim that the god of your particular taste in
>religions is in fact that "almighty God":

My God willed the universe into existence some 13.7 billion years ago according
to the world astrophysicists. An infinitely small point of mass of infinite
density appeared from whence there was nothing before, and proceeded to explode
outward to form our universe and all in it including all mass, energy, time and
outer space. Remember, "outer space" is the void space between clumps of mass
and energy flying apart.

[duke]

Then go for it.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <m1rph8lh8hvcgvtqk...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:45:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <s2jnh8togfnct8ucs...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:33:01 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
> >> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness.  Only a supreme
> >creator can
> >> >> do that.  If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
> >> >
> >> >Then a previous creator had to have created that creator, which means
> >> >he's hardly "supreme."
> >>
> >> Hey, if you think so, go for it.
> >>
> >
> >• he has a point.
>
> Then go for it.
>

• He made it.

[duke]

Oh, yes it has.

>duke; the something is still here. And again; science is working on
>alternative, naturalistic explainations. So the universe itself ISN'T
>necessarily evidence that an intelligent creator exists.

Naturalistic??? Haahaahaa. So you believe something silly like the universe
created itself, but God couldn't? Hahaahaa.

>> If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the existence
>> of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, let's hear it.

>There are several. Big Bang theory, being kicked off by subatomic fluctuations
>in vacuum state being one of them.

The argument is not about the methodology God used.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************

You can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:51:43 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Yep, the world's astrophysicists profess that the universe came into existence
13.7 billion years ago as the sudden appearance of an infinitely small point of
mass of infinite density. You didn't know this?

[sbalneav]

Please give an example.

>>duke; the something is still here. And again; science is working on
>>alternative, naturalistic explainations. So the universe itself ISN'T
>>necessarily evidence that an intelligent creator exists.
>
> Naturalistic??? Haahaahaa. So you believe something silly like the universe
> created itself, but God couldn't? Hahaahaa.

I don't dispute that a God could create the universe. I dispute that the God
exists in the first place.

>>> If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the existence
>>> of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, let's hear it.
>
>>There are several. Big Bang theory, being kicked off by subatomic fluctuations
>>in vacuum state being one of them.
>
> The argument is not about the methodology God used.

First you have to demonstrate that the God exists. That isn't a given.

--
__ _ | Make way for liberty!
(_ |_) | -- Arnold von Winkelried
__)|_) |

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:135qh8tod2a466d25...@4ax.com

I know it didn't go "into nothingness".

[Oko Tillo]

On Feb 14, 6:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:59:23 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 13, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
> >> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
> >> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
> >> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
> >> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
> >> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>
> >> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>
> >;
> >> >  Why not some
> >> >other?  Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
> >> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
> >> >anything we will ever imagine?


;
>>> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".

;
> >"Almighty" in the sense of "There is nothing
> >He cannot do"?

;
> What do you think?

I asked what you think.

;

> He willed the universe into existence.

Not an answer -- I asked if He can do anything,
anything at all, that I or anyone else could come up
with.

Yes or no?

;

> > Any thing or act I can imagine,
> >He can create? Nothing lies beyond his abilities?

Oko

[Oko Tillo]

On Feb 14, 6:52 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:29:35 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>

Not even remotely an answer.

You were asked to give reason, logic, evidence that
whatever Sentient Creator Thing which did what you
describe turns out to be the god of your particular
local religion.

The fact that the small tribe of wandering sheepherders
whose tribal god they chose to call "almighty God" in
the myths they set down on parchment is nether reason,
nor logic, nor evidence.

Try again: why should anyone think that your choice of
an object to worship is in fact that Sentient Creator
Thing:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.




Oko

[duke]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:02:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 14, 6:47 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:59:23 -0800 (PST), nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On Feb 13, 10:24 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:31:30 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.splend...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >If you'd like to skip a lot of hand-waving sophistry
>> >> >and cut to the chase, tell Duke you'll accept --
>> >> >provisionally and for the sake of argument -- that
>> >> >there must have been some Creator.  Then move to the
>> >> >next stage, and ask Duke why that Creative Thing must
>> >> >have been his own personal choice of god.
>>
>> >> Creator is his game; God is his name.
>>
>> >> >  Why not some
>> >> >other?  Why not some Race of Creative Entities that we
>> >> >know nothing about? Why not some Thing utterly beyond
>> >> >anything we will ever imagine?

>>>> God is almighty. There can be only one "almighty".
>> >"Almighty" in the sense of "There is nothing
>> >He cannot do"?
>> What do you think?

>I asked what you think.

None can outdo God.

>> He willed the universe into existence.
>Not an answer -- I asked if He can do anything,

It's impossible to top.

>anything at all, that I or anyone else could come up
>with.

God is #1.

>Yes or no?

Answered

>> > Any thing or act I can imagine,
>> >He can create? Nothing lies beyond his abilities?
>Oko

The only limits he has are the ones he elects to apply to himself.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

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

[duke]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:04:53 -0800 (PST), Oko Tillo <f.spl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Top it.

>You were asked to give reason, logic, evidence that
>whatever Sentient Creator Thing which did what you
>describe turns out to be the god of your particular
>local religion.

He's the almighty. No other can compete with him.

>The fact that the small tribe of wandering sheepherders
>whose tribal god they chose to call "almighty God" in
>the myths they set down on parchment is nether reason,
>nor logic, nor evidence.

>Try again: why should anyone think that your choice of
>an object to worship is in fact that Sentient Creator
>Thing:

God invented "sentient".

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

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

[duke]

Creation of all things, including the universe.

>>>duke; the something is still here. And again; science is working on
>>>alternative, naturalistic explainations. So the universe itself ISN'T
>>>necessarily evidence that an intelligent creator exists.
>>
>> Naturalistic??? Haahaahaa. So you believe something silly like the universe
>> created itself, but God couldn't? Hahaahaa.

>I don't dispute that a God could create the universe. I dispute that the God
>exists in the first place.

They you'll have to come up with your own concept of how the universe was
created.

>>>> If you can come up with at better, or even equal, explanation for the existence
>>>> of all things that didn't exist 13.7 billion years ago, let's hear it.

>>>There are several. Big Bang theory, being kicked off by subatomic fluctuations
>>>in vacuum state being one of them.

>> The argument is not about the methodology God used.
>First you have to demonstrate that the God exists. That isn't a given.

Creation takes care of that.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

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

[duke]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:07:19 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>

That would be equal to the 6" between your ears.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

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

[duke]

His point is on the top of his head.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************

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

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1posh8tm31ujoa9tu...@4ax.com>, duke

• God made niggers too massa Duke.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:qnosh8hk3dlbms96a...@4ax.com

You talk and debate like a spoiled smart alec child.
We always just end up going round and round in circles with you.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:23:39 +1100, "Andrew W"

It's pretty much standard for far too many theists.

[duke]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:23:39 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>>> Yep, the world's astrophysicists profess that the universe came into
>>>> existence 13.7 billion years ago as the sudden appearance of an infinitely
>>>> small point of mass of infinite density. You didn't know this?

>>> I know it didn't go "into nothingness".
>> That would be equal to the 6" between your ears.

>You talk and debate like a spoiled smart alec child.
>We always just end up going round and round in circles with you.

Noting your comment to my comment well shows who is out of their league.

[duke]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:15:21 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <1posh8tm31ujoa9tu...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:34:57 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <m1rph8lh8hvcgvtqk...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:45:27 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <s2jnh8togfnct8ucs...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:33:01 -0800 (PST), Father Haskell
>> >> >> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Creation - something form nothing into nothingness.  Only a supreme
>> >> >creator can
>> >> >> >> do that.  If you have a better or even equal answer, let's see it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Then a previous creator had to have created that creator, which means
>> >> >> >he's hardly "supreme."
>>
>> >> >> Hey, if you think so, go for it.
>> >> >• he has a point.
>> >> Then go for it.
>> >• He made it.

>> His point is on the top of his head.
>> The dukester, American - American

>• God made niggers too massa Duke.

What does this have to do with FH having a point on the top of his head?

[�RLMeasures]

In article <dlo1i85h9j8mntuji...@4ax.com>, duke

� Creators and what was created.

[duke]

He failed the "supreme" test because of the point on his head.

The dukester, American - American

[Andrew W]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:23:39 +1100, "Andrew W"
<remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>>> Yep, the world's astrophysicists profess that the universe came into
>>>>> existence 13.7 billion years ago as the sudden appearance of an
>>>>> infinitely
>>>>> small point of mass of infinite density. You didn't know this?
>
>>>> I know it didn't go "into nothingness".
>>> That would be equal to the 6" between your ears.
>
>>You talk and debate like a spoiled smart alec child.
>>We always just end up going round and round in circles with you.
>
>Noting your comment to my comment well shows who is out of their league.
>

No one agrees with your assessment, except maybe PB .

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:21:38 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.

[Andrew W]

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:mn8ci89u7h1gja1lu...@4ax.com

> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:21:38 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:23:39 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Yep, the world's astrophysicists profess that the universe came
>>>>>>> into existence 13.7 billion years ago as the sudden appearance
>>>>>>> of an infinitely
>>>>>>> small point of mass of infinite density. You didn't know this?
>>>
>>>>>> I know it didn't go "into nothingness".
>>>>> That would be equal to the 6" between your ears.
>>>
>>>> You talk and debate like a spoiled smart alec child.
>>>> We always just end up going round and round in circles with you.
>>>
>>> Noting your comment to my comment well shows who is out of their
>>> league.
>> No one agrees with your assessment, except maybe PB .
>
> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>

Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
I prefer freedom.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kg95h3$8tp$1...@dont-email.me>, "Andrew W"

• and "Duke" rather obviously gets off on obedience Andrew.

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.

>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>I prefer freedom.

As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
<remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >I prefer freedom.
>
> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>

• maxi-deluded.

[Les]

Interesting that Satan is depicted speaking with US idioms and
possibly with a Southern US accent.

That seems, somehow approriate.


Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

[W.T.S.]

In article <o9shi8luggh71uh1s...@4ax.com>, l...@sharnt.tell
says...

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (?RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >>
> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >I prefer freedom.
> >>
> >> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >>

> >? maxi-deluded.

>
> Interesting that Satan is depicted speaking with US idioms and
> possibly with a Southern US accent.
>
> That seems, somehow approriate.
>
> Les Hellawell
> Greeting from:
> YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
>

> "For the assertion that ?There is no God? is just as much a claim to
> knowledge as is the assertion that ?There is a God.? Therefore, the

> former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
> - William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"

Yes, "God" is the perfect con game. You can't prove or disprove "God",
you can only prove that the arguments for a "God" are wrong or highly
flawed.
>

Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x

[•RLMeasures]

In article <o9shi8luggh71uh1s...@4ax.com>, Les

<l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >>
> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >I prefer freedom.
> >>
> >> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >>
> >• maxi-deluded.
>
> Interesting that Satan is depicted speaking with US idioms and
> possibly with a Southern US accent.
>
> That seems, somehow approriate.
>

• Southern Baptist Hell is apparently way hotter than RCC Hell.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>
>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>I prefer freedom.
>
>As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>

Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.

And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
makes you a liar yet again.

[duke]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.

[duke]

There's only one hell, rl.

[duke]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:09 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...
>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>>
>>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
>>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>>I prefer freedom.
>>
>>As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>>

>Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.

Kiss your butt goodbye, aw.

>And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
>makes you a liar yet again.

The bible says "fires of hell".

[W.T.S.]

In article <3k9ki8pcjc4ijm1d5...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:09 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke" wrote in message news:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...
> >>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >>
> >>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >>>I prefer freedom.
> >>
> >>As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >>
> >Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.
>
> Kiss your butt goodbye, aw.
>
> >And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
> >makes you a liar yet again.
>
> The bible says "fires of hell".

The pages of the bible are too stiff to be used as toilet paper.
>
> The pukester, CatholiKKK Stool.
> ********************************************
> Renounce Catholicism!

> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

[�RLMeasures]

In article <ch9ki8pv0l2s8jnbt...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >>
> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >I prefer freedom.
> >>
> >> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >>
> >� maxi-deluded.
>
> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
>

� Quite true but so will you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <bj9ki8to9upecb748...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:51:54 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <o9shi8luggh71uh1s...@4ax.com>, Les
> ><l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving
church?
> >> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >> >I prefer freedom.
> >> >>
> >> >> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >> >>
> >> >• maxi-deluded.
> >>
> >> Interesting that Satan is depicted speaking with US idioms and
> >> possibly with a Southern US accent.
> >>
> >> That seems, somehow approriate.
> >>
> >• Southern Baptist Hell is apparently way hotter than RCC Hell.
>
> There's only one hell, rl.
>

• There are at least 3 of 'em. RC Hell, Baptist Hell and Eskimo Hell -
which is so damned cold it freezes mercury thermometers.

[Syd M.]

On Feb 24, 9:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:51:54 -0800, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:

> >In article <o9shi8luggh71uh1sgv6pn4eh5qr7c7...@4ax.com>, Les

> ><l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org ( RLMeasures) wrote:
>

> >> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbujiutvifshd5ftt1...@4ax.com>, duke

> >> ><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"

> >> ><remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
> >> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >> >I prefer freedom.
>
> >> >> As satan proclaims:  Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>
> >> >  maxi-deluded.
>
> >> Interesting that Satan is depicted speaking with US idioms and
> >> possibly with a Southern US accent.
>
> >> That seems, somehow approriate.
>
> >  Southern Baptist Hell is apparently way hotter than RCC Hell.
>
> There's only one hell, rl.
>
>

Empty assertion.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 24, 9:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:09 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >"duke"  wrote in messagenews:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...

> >>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"

> >><remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> >>wrote:
>
> >>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
> >>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >>>I prefer freedom.
>
> >>As satan proclaims:  Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>
> >Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.
>
> Kiss your butt goodbye, aw.
>
> >And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
> >makes you a liar yet again.
>
> The bible says

Don't care.
The bible is not a acceptable document.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Feb 24, 9:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbujiutvifshd5ftt1...@4ax.com>, duke

> ><duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"

> ><remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >I prefer freedom.
>
> >> As satan proclaims:  Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>
> >•  maxi-deluded.
>
> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
>
>

Nope.
Empty threats do not convince.

PDW

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:3k9ki8pcjc4ijm1d5...@4ax.com...

>On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:09 +1100, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>"duke" wrote in message
>>news:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...
>>>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>>>
>>>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving
>>>>church?
>>>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>>>I prefer freedom.
>>>
>>>As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>>>
>
>>Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.
>
>Kiss your butt goodbye, aw.
>

Kiss your brain goodbye.
Oh too late, its already gone.

>
>>And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
>>makes you a liar yet again.
>
>The bible says "fires of hell".
>

The Bible says a lot of false things.
Get a brain and you'll see through them like we do.
You obviously don't care too much for the Bible because you spell it with a
small b.

[Dakota]

On 2/24/2013 6:39 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>> In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbujiutvifshd5ftt1...@4ax.com>, duke
>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>> <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>>
>>>>> Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
>>>>> Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>>>> I prefer freedom.
>>
>>>> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>>

>>> � maxi-deluded.

>>
>> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
> Empty threats do not convince.
>
> PDW
>

I sometimes wish that life continued after death just long enough for
the theists to realize that what they believed in all their lives was
nonsense.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:ch9ki8pv0l2s8jnbt...@4ax.com...

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>>>
>>> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving
>>> >church?
>>> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>> >I prefer freedom.
>>>
>>> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>>>
>>• maxi-deluded.
>
>You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
>

I don't need to wait till then because I already know.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kgeknb$ul7$2...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/24/2013 6:39 PM, Syd M. wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 9:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>> In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbujiutvifshd5ftt1...@4ax.com>, duke
> >>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >>> <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >>
> >>>>> Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving
> >>>>> church?
> >>>>> Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >>>>> I prefer freedom.
> >>
> >>>> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >>

> >>> � maxi-deluded.

> >>
> >> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Nope.
> > Empty threats do not convince.
> >
> > PDW
> >
> I sometimes wish that life continued after death just long enough for
> the theists to realize that what they believed in all their lives was
> nonsense.

Or that the arrogant ones who are convinced they are going to heaven
would get what they deserve for their evil. The looks on their faces
would be beyond awesome.

--
JD

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

[plainolamerican]

On Feb 23, 7:11 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W" <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> wrote:
>
> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >I prefer freedom.
>
> As satan proclaims:  Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>
> The dukester, American - American
>
> ********************************************
> Repeal Obama
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way

---
religious myth to ignore.

[plainolamerican]

On Feb 24, 8:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:15:09 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>

> >"duke"  wrote in messagenews:nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com...

> >>On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"

> >><remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>

> >>wrote:
>
> >>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>
> >>>Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
> >>>Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >>>I prefer freedom.
>
> >>As satan proclaims:  Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>
> >Nope. However you are definitely a born and bred mind slave.
>
> Kiss your butt goodbye, aw.
>
> >And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
> >makes you a liar yet again.
>
> The bible says "fires of hell".
>
> The dukester, American - American
>
> ********************************************
> Repeal Obama
> You simply can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

The bible
---
jewish/xian myth to ignore.

[duke]

Yes, but I expect them, and you and your friends don't. Spiritual suicide is
gruesome.

[duke]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:11:42 -0600, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/24/2013 6:39 PM, Syd M. wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 9:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>> In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbujiutvifshd5ftt1...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>> <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>> <remove_ajwer...@optusnet.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
>>>
>>>>>> Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving church?
>>>>>> Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
>>>>>> I prefer freedom.
>>>
>>>>> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
>>>

>>>> • maxi-deluded.

>>>
>>> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>> Empty threats do not convince.
>>
>> PDW
>>
>I sometimes wish that life continued after death just long enough for
>the theists to realize that what they believed in all their lives was
>nonsense.

Why would it be nonsense? You go right ahead and fly in the face of revelation,
but not me.

[duke]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:09:05 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>>And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
>>>makes you a liar yet again.

>>The bible says "fires of hell".

>The Bible says a lot of false things.

Cruise onward. You have only you to lose. I'm not crazy like you.

>Get a brain and you'll see through them like we do.
>You obviously don't care too much for the Bible because you spell it with a
>small b.

[Andrew W]

"duke" wrote in message news:ohmni8d984v8kn15b...@4ax.com...

>On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:09:05 +1100, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>>And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
>>>>makes you a liar yet again.
>
>>>The bible says "fires of hell".
>
>>The Bible says a lot of false things.
>
>Cruise onward. You have only you to lose. I'm not crazy like you.
>

You are crazy because you zealously and gleefully just swallow and promote
all the claims of a highly organised power based book cult.

[�RLMeasures]

In article <qcmni8dgvikqgg17k...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:52:54 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <ch9ki8pv0l2s8jnbt...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 08:05:24 -0800, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <nufhi8t4si9bmtbuj...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:21:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> >> ><remove_...@optusnet.com.au>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Patrick and I both agree that you are a waste of time in discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> >Because I refuse to bow to you and your mind and spirit enslaving
church?
> >> >> >Yes you are both definitely wasting your time.
> >> >> >I prefer freedom.
> >> >>
> >> >> As satan proclaims: Ah, fresh aw meat coming my way.
> >> >>
> >> >� maxi-deluded.
> >>
> >> You and aw will find out for sure one moment after each of you dies.
> >>
> >� Quite true but so will you.
>
> Yes, but I expect them, and you and your friends don't. Spiritual suicide is
> gruesome.
>

� groan.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <3fmni8pv6nunpauvl...@4ax.com>, duke

•• let us critics give thanks for your servile deference to the RCC.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <ohmni8d984v8kn15b...@4ax.com>, duke

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

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:09:05 +1100, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >>>And 'satan' never said any such thing. Those are your dopey words, which
> >>>makes you a liar yet again.
>
> >>The bible says "fires of hell".
>
> >The Bible says a lot of false things.
>
> Cruise onward. You have only you to lose. I'm not crazy like you.
>

• Thank God you are crazy-obedient to an organized religion with a dark side.