freedom is real
nando_r...@yahoo.com
gotta acnowledge freedom is real. You gotta do it, for your life.
ORIGINS, where things come from, from nothing, zero, nihilo, by
creation. For instance, things turn out one way or another, it's true,
and then comes the new, the new thing, the thing that says which way
it turned out. And then you can just opinionate, about the spirit, was
it good, or bad, was it a joy, was it misery, you are to say. None of
this scientific scientism, just your subjective opinion suffices, it's
clear as day, this is the way it should be, how "zience" is zuppozzed
to be...
Jerry Freedman
Maybe you could discuss this with backspace? I'd pay to read that
(maybe with herbal support)
RAM
I'll provide supplemental financial support as well.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What's all this then, what's all this? Don't you know you gotta, you
> gotta acnowledge freedom is real.
For people and other satient life forms, but not for rocks and other
inanimate objects, like planets, moons or bowling balls.
> You gotta do it, for your life.
> ORIGINS, where things come from, from nothing, zero, nihilo, by
> creation.
This must be the part of the post where you are taking a toke while
typing...
> For instance, things turn out one way or another, it's true,
> and then comes the new, the new thing, the thing that says which way
> it turned out.
Which does not need to be anything like a "guiding deciding
intelligent" force, like a sky pixie. it could be that the dirt on
one side of the rock errodes out from under it, causing the rock to
roll "this way" instead of "that way". No mind involved, no mental
decisions being made, just cause and effect.
> And then you can just opinionate,
And you don't?
> about the spirit, was
> it good, or bad, was it a joy, was it misery, you are to say.
Does the word "subjective" mean anything to you, other than the
private definition you've been using?
> None of
> this scientific scientism, just your subjective opinion suffices, it's
> clear as day, this is the way it should be,
No, idealy, science is objective. That's part of the reason behind
peer review.
> how "zience" is zuppozzed
> to be...
Inhaling while toking again? Whatever you're smoking is evidently
damaging your brain. You should stop before you lose your ability to
choose.
Boikat
bpuharic
you're a man with an evil sense of humor...
Will in New Haven
Freedom is real but it isn't what you think it is. Using think in its
broadest sense.
--
Will in New Haven
Godevodevo
Oh I see. I thought he had slipped into some sort of delusionsal
state due to lack of proper medication. His ramblings this time were
barely intelligable, However, having a few hits of certain herbs could
produce the same effect. It's good to know, I'll keep that in mind
for future reference.
Kimberly
Stephen
Freedom is a habit
and a coat worn
some born to wear it
some never to know it.
Freedom is cheap
or again as a garment
is so costly
men pay their lives
rather than not have it.
Freedom is baffling:
men having it often
know not they have it
till it is gone and
they no longer have it.
What does this mean?
Is it a riddle?
Yes, it is first of all
in the primers of riddles.
To be free is so-so:
you can and you can't:
walkers can have freedom
only by never walking
away their freedom:
runners too have freedom
unless they overrun:
eaters have often outeaten
their freedom to eat
and drinkers overdrank
their fine drinking freedom.
Sandburg. The Complete Poems of Carl Sandburg, Revised and Expanded
Edition, 1970. Harcourt Brace & Company
--
Devils Advocaat
> On May 8, 4:28�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What's all this then, what's all this? Don't you know you gotta, you
> > gotta acnowledge freedom is real.
>
> For people and other satient life forms, but not for rocks and other
> inanimate objects, like planets, moons or bowling balls.
You forgot to mention tennis balls and helium filled balloons released
by me in an open field. :P
Boikat
> On 9 May, 01:25, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 4:28�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What's all this then, what's all this? Don't you know you gotta, you
> > > gotta acnowledge freedom is real.
>
> > For people and other satient life forms, but not for rocks and other
> > inanimate objects, like planets, moons or bowling balls.
>
> You forgot to mention tennis balls and helium filled balloons released
> by me in an open field. :P
So did nando. Thought, rather than "forgetting", I think he ran away
and hid in the broom closet.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
And did the brooms choose to let him into their private closet? :P
Boikat
Well, he stood outside the closet for hours, begging and begging.
Getting no reply from the brooms or mops, he decided "silence implies
consent", he decided that they decided he could hide in the closet
too.
It's kind of scary, but that almost made sense. 80
Boikat
raven1
I don't understand a word of what you're saying, but it reminds me of
Beat poetry.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
brains. You don't acknowledge freedom is real, no Darwinist does, and
that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
etc.
Wombat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are just a liar. You acknowledge freedom is real for brains only,
> so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
> brains. You don't acknowledge freedom is real, no Darwinist does, and
> that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
> murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
> etc.
So that's why Darwin's books were burned by the Nazis. Thank you for
clearing that up.
Wombat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
evil.
> > > Boikat- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are just a liar. You acknowledge freedom is real for brains only,
> so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
> brains.
Why don't you allow your electrons to make choices? Why does your
brain control your thoughts? Why do you hate freedom?
> You don't acknowledge freedom is real, no Darwinist does, and
> that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
> murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
> etc.
Hirohito had little say in the matter. The generals in Japan, Hitler,
and Mussolini were not inspired or informed by science. None of them
allowed freedom of speech.
Doesn't "Islam" mean "submission"? How is that compatible with
freedom?
Kermit
Wombat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First of all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust, second you know
> denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
> bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
> history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
> of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
> evil.
So why the hell did YOU bring up Mussolini, Hirohito and Hitler, then.
What is the "Darwinist" lie about the Shoah?
Please, for once, DEFINE FREEDOM.
Wombat
raven1
wrote:
>On May 10, 3:35�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
><nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> First of all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust, second you know
>> denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
>> bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
>> history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
>> of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
>> evil.
>
>So why the hell did YOU bring up Mussolini, Hirohito and Hitler, then.
>What is the "Darwinist" lie about the Shoah?
>Please, for once, DEFINE FREEDOM.
"Things turning out one way or another" is Nando's operative
definition, IIRC.
Boikat
Where is my "lie"?
> You acknowledge freedom is real for brains only,
Since freedom is a state of mind, a brain is a requirement.
> so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
> brains.
The componants of the brain are not the brain any more than a spark-
plug is the car, dipshit.
> You don't acknowledge freedom is real,
I most certainly to, within the constraints of the physical
limitations imposed by reality. Such as freedom, as most prople use
the word, requires a mind. A mind requires a brain. QED.
Though, in your case, you consistently demonstrate that a brain does
not require a stable mind....
> no Darwinist does,
Since you, no doubt, consider me a 'darwinist", you are wrong.
> and
> that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
> murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
> etc.
War predates anything even remotely resembling "darwinism" or the ToE,
therefore, your inane rant is refuted.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
Rest assured the fact that it almost made sense means that it also
didn't make any sense :P
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> First of all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust, second you know
> denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
> bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
> history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
> of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
> evil.
>
And you called *me* a liar?
Boikat
Wombat
Which is meaningless.
Wombat
raven1
wrote:
>On May 10, 4:43�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 07:38:13 -0700 (PDT), Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On May 10, 3:35�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>> ><nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> First of all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust, second you know
>> >> denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
>> >> bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
>> >> history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
>> >> of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
>> >> evil.
>>
>> >So why the hell did YOU bring up Mussolini, Hirohito and Hitler, then.
>> >What is the "Darwinist" lie about the Shoah?
>> >Please, for once, DEFINE FREEDOM.
>>
>> "Things turning out one way or another" is Nando's operative
>> definition, IIRC.
>
>Which is meaningless.
I don't recall you asking for a *meaningful* definition. ;-)
Wombat
True, but a meaningless definition is useless.
Wombat
raven1
wrote:
He seems to be advocating for quantum indeterminacy on a macroscopic
scale, where not only does God play dice with the universe, the dice
themselves make choices as to how they will fall. As far as I can
determine anyway; it's difficult to penetrate his fog of incoherence
to arrive at what he's actually trying to say.
bpuharic
>You are just a liar. You acknowledge freedom is real for brains only,
>so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
>brains. You don't acknowledge freedom is real, no Darwinist does, and
>that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
>murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
>etc.
>
the biggest nazis in the world today are muslims. not all muslims, but
antisemitisim is rife in the muslim world.
and i suggest you read 'dabru emet'. the jews dont think darwinism had
anything at all to do wi th the shoah
you just hate jews. and christians. and scientists. and women
in fact, you pretty much hate anyone who's not a muslim
bpuharic
>First of all Darwinists are lying about the holocaust,
since xtians were killing jews for a thousand years before darwin,
unless he invented a time machine, you have some explaining to do
second you know
>denying freedom is real is a bad thing, which can in turn lead to more
>bad things, like the holocaust. So there is no need to engage in a
>history debate with freedom deniers about the holocaust, the evidence
>of their present denial of freedom is sufficient evidence of their
>evil.
this from a guy who told me mohammed atta has more potential for
reform than a 'slut' who objectifies her sex.
haiku jones
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You are just a liar. You acknowledge freedom is real for brains only,
> so about 0 percent of the universe, and excluding the electrons in the
> brains. You don't acknowledge freedom is real, no Darwinist does, and
> that's why Darwinists make war, Hirohito, Mussolini, Hitler, rampant
> murder in the holocaust, objectify and destroy all morality, etc.
> etc.
>
Hasn't Toyota recalled Nando yet? Clearly his
brain is stuck at wide-open.
Haiku Jones
Wombat
Precisely.
Wombat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
humanity is not evil, Darwinists are evil, destroying basic knowledge
about freedom with natural selection theory. An obvious evil
Darwinists engage in here and now on this forum for all to see. Those
simple actions of Darwinists on this forum are at 1 with murder, rape,
lying and general defilement of humanity.
On 11 mei, 00:03, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 04:29:59 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When you say muslism hate jews, you are implying humanity is evil.
Sinvr whrn is "muslism" a synonym for "humanity"?
> But
> humanity is not evil,
He didn'y say "humanity". Can you not read?
> Darwinists are evil,
No as evil as those who would deprive others of the right to decide to
learn to read and obtain an education.
> destroying basic knowledge
> about freedom with natural selection theory.
How does NS "destroy basic knowledge about freedom"?
> An obvious evil
> Darwinists engage in here and now on this forum for all to see. Those
> simple actions of Darwinists on this forum are at 1 with murder, rape,
> lying and general defilement of humanity.
Riiiiight. There was none of that prior to 1857. Oh, wait. there
was. Once again, your claims are refuted.
Boikat
bpuharic
>When you say muslism hate jews, you are implying humanity is evil.
when you say darwinists hate jews you are implying humanity is evil
But
>humanity is not evil, Darwinists are evil, destroying basic knowledge
>about freedom with natural selection theory.
circular argument. when's the last time a darwinist flew a plane into
a building?
those were YOUR co believers
An obvious evil
>Darwinists engage in here and now on this forum for all to see. Those
>simple actions of Darwinists on this forum are at 1 with murder, rape,
>lying and general defilement of humanity.
funny. the greatest oppression in the world today
is in islamic countries. see somalia and sudan. your co
religionists...muslims...are committing murder in the name of your god
you have your bullshit religoius ideas. i have historical fact
nando_r...@yahoo.com
means nothing.
On 12 mei, 02:54, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:36:29 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Godevodevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
I beg to differ. It is you who have nothing. You believe in a God
who endorses killing anyone with differeing beliefs, depriving half
the population of their freedom to live, learn, and work, a God who
gives martyrs virgins (as if women are nothing more than property).
This is truly nothing. There is no true morality, no true knowledge,
no real freedom, nothing but anger, hatred, and intolerence. While
I'm aware that not all muslims follow these preposterous rules, many
in the middle east do and that means they not only have nothing, they
are indeed perpatuating evil around the world and not just their own
countries. If its freedom you are really concerned with, drop your
blind faith in an ancient diety and learn something about the real
world. Science is the only way to do that. Learn what real freedom
is, not your definintion of it.
Boikat
> means nothing.
>
Begin translation:
Facts are irrelevant.
End translation.
No wonder your mind is screwed up.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
destroyers of knowledge about freedom? no matter what mood I am in,
happy or sad, the answer always comes up that they will suffer the
wrath of God. If you destroy knowledge about freedom, then you get
destroyed by God, ofcourse. Yes ofcourse, such a snide plan for the
builders of knowledge, scientists, to actually go out of their way to
destroy a whole class of knowledge that is practically used by
everybody, such vitriolic evil invites the wrath of God. You see
nothing but anger, hatered and intolerance now in me, but that is
really just nothing yet compared to the wrath of God. That's much
bigger. And then how to explain your bizarre destruction of knowledge
about freedom to God? in face of His wrath?
> is, not your definintion of it.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Bob T.
wrote:
> On May 8, 5:28�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What's all this then, what's all this? Don't you know you gotta, you
> > ORIGINS, where things come from, from nothing, zero, nihilo, by
> > and then comes the new, the new thing, the thing that says which way
> > it good, or bad, was it a joy, was it misery, you are to say. None of
> > this scientific scientism, just your subjective opinion suffices, it's
> > to be...
>
> Freedom is real but it isn't what you think it is. Using think in its broadest sense.
>
Nando is a broad?
- Bob T
> --
> Will in New Haven
aganunitsi
about choosing one hole or another...
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Every time I ask myself, what would be the fate of Darwinist
> destroyers of knowledge about freedom?
Maybe you should be asking why your anti-psychotics are not working?
> no matter what mood I am in,
> happy or sad, the answer always comes up that they will suffer the
> wrath of God.
Oh, gee.
> If you destroy knowledge about freedom, then you get
> destroyed by God, ofcourse.
Whew! For a second there, I tought I was in trouble! Good thing I do
not destroy the knowledge of freedom! But I do try to clarify it for
you, nando, since you are slightly confused. Minds enjoy "freedom" as
in "the capability to make choices". Rocks do not. Do you understand
why that is?
> Yes ofcourse, such a snide plan for the
> builders of knowledge, scientists, to actually go out of their way to
> destroy a whole class of knowledge that is practically used by
> everybody, such vitriolic evil invites the wrath of God.
That epends on what you mean by "freedome" too. You imply it means the
ability to chose to turn out one way or the other. The *only* thing
that aplies to would be something with a relatively complex mind, like
a person. However, you apply that same usage to inanimate objects.
Doing so is a sign of insanity.
> You see
> nothing but anger, hatered and intolerance now in me,
That's not new. But you did leave out "insanity", "self-loathing",
"perverted" and "stupid".
> but that is
> really just nothing yet compared to the wrath of God.
I fart in your impotant god's general direction.
> That's much
> bigger. And then how to explain your bizarre destruction of knowledge
> about freedom to God? in face of His wrath?
Even more interesting would be if he asked you, "What in the FUCK are
you babbling on about?"
>
Boikat
Kermit
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Every time I ask myself, what would be the fate of Darwinist
> destroyers of knowledge about freedom?
How does more knowledge destroy freedom? It seems to me that more
knowledge leads to more choices, and more effective decisions.
> no matter what mood I am in,
> happy or sad, the answer always comes up that they will suffer the
> wrath of God.
Doesn't "Islam" means "submission"? I don't see how that is compatible
with freedom. *Especially* if you think others should be forced into
that life.
> If you destroy knowledge about freedom, then you get
> destroyed by God, ofcourse. Yes ofcourse, such a snide plan for the
> builders of knowledge, scientists, to actually go out of their way to
> destroy a whole class of knowledge that is practically used by
> everybody,
You have *never* quoted anybody else who talks about freedom in the
way that you do.
> such vitriolic evil invites the wrath of God. You see
> nothing but anger, hatered and intolerance now in me, but that is
> really just nothing yet compared to the wrath of God.
Naw. He's a wimp. I'm imagining a god that can beat up your imaginary
god.
> That's much
> bigger. And then how to explain your bizarre destruction of knowledge
> about freedom to God? in face of His wrath?
What god? What wrath? All I see are inarticulate angry postings by a
follower of the path of submission, blathering about freedom while
whining that other people are making choices he doesn't like.
You *hate* freedom. You hate knowledge. You especially hate taking
responsibility for your own actions. "Waah! She made me lust after
her! Someone should hurt that woman! Waah!"
Be a man.
If you act in a certain way, that was *your choice, not somebody
else's.
If you love freedom, then you must accept other people's choices.
If you love knowledge, then you must be willing to give up ideas that
are wrong, even if they give you comfort in a scary world.
Kermit
bpuharic
>You have nothing, you are just alike a computer doing measurements, it
>means nothing.
>
the same can be said of your post
bpuharic
>Every time I ask myself, what would be the fate of Darwinist
>destroyers of knowledge about freedom? no matter what mood I am in,
>happy or sad, the answer always comes up that they will suffer the
>wrath of God.
well, as long as we stay away from tall buildings your co-religionists
want to destroy, we should be OK
If you destroy knowledge about freedom, then you get
>destroyed by God, ofcourse. Yes ofcourse, such a snide plan for the
>builders of knowledge, scientists, to actually go out of their way to
>destroy a whole class of knowledge that is practically used by
>everybody, such vitriolic evil invites the wrath of God. You see
>nothing but anger, hatered and intolerance now in me
gee. what makes you different than any other al qaida wannabe?
, but that is
>really just nothing yet compared to the wrath of God. That's much
>bigger. And then how to explain your bizarre destruction of knowledge
>about freedom to God? in face of His wrath?
you guys have been saying that for a thousand years. any idea when
he's gonna get around to being wrathful?
Fredric L. Rice
>Every time I ask myself, what would be the fate of Darwinist
>destroyers of knowledge about freedom?
Do you do that because you're mentally ill?
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Christopher Denney
But a meaningless definition is better than his.
If you assume a meaningless definition has a value of zero; then his
is either negative, or lies somewhere on the imaginary plane.
Christopher Denney
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When you say muslism hate jews, you are implying humanity is evil. But
No, when someone says Muslims hate Jews, they are saying that those
Muslims are evil.
> humanity is not evil, Darwinists are evil, destroying basic knowledge
How exactly is it that you think knowledge can be destroyed?
> about freedom with natural selection theory. An obvious evil
> Darwinists engage in here and now on this forum for all to see. Those
> simple actions of Darwinists on this forum are at 1 with murder, rape,
> lying and general defilement of humanity.
huh?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
blame Christians, they also blame Jews on some Israel issues. Loose
accusations, which when it comes down to it they then turn into
blaming humanity, the evil evolved human. But it is Darwinists that
are guilty of destroying knowledge about freedom on this forum,
Darwinists that are guilty, destroying the knowledge about freedom,
the gate to spiritual awareness, with natural selection theory.
On 13 mei, 05:50, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
wrote:
bpuharic
<nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Blaming muslims is just code
that's true. it's a well known fact that evolutionary biologists from
the u. of chicago flew 4 planes into buildings on 9/11.
.. Darwinists also go out of their way to
>blame Christians, they also blame Jews on some Israel issues
ROFLMAO!! the most antisemitic people on earth are MUSLIMS!!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
was an anti-semite, and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
evil. You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent. And
speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn out one way or
another. That is what is known to us humans, except for being misled
by evil Darwinists. So you are guilty, darwinists are guilty, not
humanity.
On 14 mei, 00:17, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
bpuharic
>Anti-semitism is also just code.
everything's code to you, if it disproves your islamist fanaticism
You use anti-semitism because Hitler
>was an anti-semite,
so are many muslims
and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
>evil. You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
>evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent.
gee. i guess i'm a martian, right?
And
>speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn out one way or
>another. That is what is known to us humans, except for being misled
>by evil Darwinists. So you are guilty, darwinists are guilty, not
>humanity.
yeah. speaking on behalf of humanity
except for
jews
christians
women
scientists
atheists
etc etc
again, i say: it was MUSLIMS who murdered 3000 people on 9/11.
YOU consider it 'code'. i consider it MURDER
so much for your bullshit on 'freedom'
the muslim world is NOT free
Lady Godevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
You said " And speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn
out one way or
another." What the hell does that mean exactly?! That says absolutly
nothing about anything and it definitly doesn't prove "darwinists" are
evil. First off, there's no such thing as a darwinist, second, to try
and hold scientists who accept reality responsible for the atrocities
of all mankind is no different than me holding you responsible for all
the evils commited by men or muslims or whatever. You need to get a
grip and wake up to reality and at least attempt to make somekind of
logical sense.
Kimberly
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Blaming muslims is just code. Darwinists also go out of their way to
> blame Christians, they also blame Jews on some Israel issues. Loose
> accusations,
Sort of the way you blame "darwinism" for wars, murders, rapes, and so
on, even though that sort of thing was going on since the first
hominid learned that hitting another hominid on the head with a stick
meant the hominid with the stick got to keep the most bananas.
> which when it comes down to it they then turn into
> blaming humanity, the evil evolved human.
As to the evil created human?
> But it is Darwinists that
> are guilty of destroying knowledge about freedom on this forum,
How? By pointing out to you that rocks cannot think? You cannot
destry what never existed.
> Darwinists that are guilty, destroying the knowledge about freedom,
You keep whining about that, but, as stated above, the only "freedom"
being "destroyed" is your claim that inaimate objects are free to
decide to turn out one way or the other. Again, what does not exist
cannot be destroyed.
> the gate to spiritual awareness, with natural selection theory.
NS does not "destroy" the "gate" to "spiritual awareness". NS does
not directly address spirituality, since spirituality is a state of
mind. Besides, in general, if any branch of science "destroys" any
aspect of religious belief, so what? Better to understand reality
than to believe in a false belief. Unless, of course, you wish to live
a lie.
Boikat
Boikat
> was an anti-semite, and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
> evil.
And one of his bestest buddies was the Grand Mufti:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/arabnazi.html
> You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
> evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent.
You're an asshole.
> And
> speaking on behalf of humanity,
*You* do not speak for humanity. *You* only speak for yourself.
> I say that things turn out one way or
> another.
So what? many things that "turn out one way or the other" do not do
so because a decision was made by a mind. A rock rolls down a hill
because of physical forces, not because it decides to roll down a
hill.
> That is what is known to us humans, except for being misled
> by evil Darwinists. So you are guilty, darwinists are guilty, not
> humanity.
So, how come evil existed prior to "darwinism"? You always tuck tail
and run when asked that question.
Boikat
aganunitsi
> On May 13, 6:24�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
> > evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent.
>
> You're an asshole.
> Boikat
This warmed my heart more than any other comment this month. All the
way down to the cockles.
Wombat
He's got this bee in his bonnet re 'freedom'. The trouble is, despite
requests, he won't define it so it can be understood. Apart from that
he is a Muslim convert with what seems to be a loose screw.
Wombat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
consider it an expression of humanity, and you rage against humanity.
After all this huffing and puffing against every religion, all the
Darwinists turn to accuse evolved mankind as the real culprit.
On 14 mei, 01:32, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 16:24:01 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
bpuharic
>It's rubbish, just a sherade. You don't consider it murder
first you islamists murder people
THEN you have the audacity to tell people what they think about
murder.
this is more proof that religoius fanatics think loving god means
hating the human race
YOU MURDERED PEOPLE. your ideology is responsible for that; not mine.
YOU MURDERED PEOPLE. it doesnt matter what i think; it's a fact
your religious co-believers commit murder.
, you
>consider it an expression of humanity, and you rage against humanity.
>After all this huffing and puffing against every religion, all the
>Darwinists turn to accuse evolved mankind as the real culprit.
fine. you show me where mohammed atta said he did it in the name of
darwin rather than ALLAH and i'll believe you.
Nick Keighley
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:36:29 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >When you say muslism hate jews, you are implying humanity is evil.
>
> when you say darwinists hate jews you are implying humanity is evil
>
> �But
>
> >humanity is not evil, Darwinists are evil, destroying basic knowledge
> >about freedom with natural selection theory.
>
> circular argument. when's the last time a darwinist flew a plane into
> a building?
>
> those were YOUR co believers
>
> �An obvious evil
>
> >Darwinists engage in here and now on this forum for all to see. Those
> >simple actions of Darwinists on this forum are at 1 with murder, rape,
> >lying and general defilement of humanity.
>
> funny. the greatest oppression in the world today
>
> is in islamic countries. see somalia and sudan. your co
> religionists...muslims...are committing murder in the name of your god
North Korea and Burma are also well known Muslim countries
Klaus Hellnick
> On May 11, 6:36 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When you say muslism hate jews, you are implying humanity is evil. But
>
> No, when someone says Muslims hate Jews, they are saying that those
> Muslims are evil.
>
>> humanity is not evil, Darwinists are evil, destroying basic knowledge
>
> How exactly is it that you think knowledge can be destroyed?
By burning books, killing scientists, and banning research, as what
happened in Alexandria.
Klaus
Caranx latus
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anti-semitism is also just code. You use anti-semitism because Hitler
> was an anti-semite, and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
> evil. You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
> evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent. And
> speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn out one way or
> another.
Sorry, but I missed where humanity elected you to be its spokesloon.
By what right do you claim that position?
Caranx latus
> On May 14, 3:03嚙窮m, Lady Godevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 6:24嚙緘m, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Anti-semitism is also just code. You use anti-semitism because Hitler
> > > was an anti-semite, and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
> > > evil. You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
> > > evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent. And
> > > speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn out one way or
> > > another. That is what is known to us humans, except for being misled
> > > by evil Darwinists. So you are guilty, darwinists are guilty, not
> > > humanity.
>
> > > On 14 mei, 00:17, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >Blaming muslims is just code
>
> > > > that's true. it's a well known fact that evolutionary biologists from
> > > > the u. of chicago flew 4 planes into buildings on 9/11.
>
> > > > .. Darwinists also go out of their way to
>
> > > > >blame Christians, they also blame Jews on some Israel issues
>
> > > > ROFLMAO!! the most antisemitic people on earth are MUSLIMS!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You said " And speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn
> > out one way or
> > nothing about anything and it definitly doesn't prove "darwinists" are
> > and hold scientists who accept reality responsible for the atrocities
> > of all mankind is no different than me holding you responsible for all
> > grip and wake up to reality and at least attempt to make somekind of
> > logical sense.
>
> > Kimberly
>
> requests, he won't define it so it can be understood. 嚙璀part from that
> he is a Muslim convert with what seems to be a loose screw.
I can't agree with that assessment. There is absolutely no evidence
that he has a screw at all, loose or otherwise.
Dick C.
news:2694c65e-760e-40f7...@n15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> You said " And speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn
> out one way or
> another." What the hell does that mean exactly?! That says absolutly
> nothing about anything and it definitly doesn't prove "darwinists" are
> evil. First off, there's no such thing as a darwinist, second, to try
> and hold scientists who accept reality responsible for the atrocities
> of all mankind is no different than me holding you responsible for all
> the evils commited by men or muslims or whatever. You need to get a
> grip and wake up to reality and at least attempt to make somekind of
> logical sense.
Kimberly, talk.origins is a magnet for the mentally incompetent
fundamentalists. We currently have only 2 of the insane types,
Ray Martinez and Nando. They are both crazier than bat s**t.
Nando has thinks that inanimate objects have the freedom to make
choices, and he blames darwinists for all the evil in the world,
much in the same way that Ray does.
Yu can ask, but you will never get a sensible answer from either one.
I don't ask either of them questions because others seem to light their
fires so well, and get them both frothing at the mouth with just a few
choice words.
It allows me to sit back and enjoy the ride.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
other brains? Only the brain in the universe can turn out one way or
another? By all means murder this and that, murder away, utterly
meaningless without reference to the spiritual. Like something Mickey
Mouse and Donald Duck would do laughing, MM no pluto, don't murder
pluto! hahahah, pluto! pluto! DD grbbhghhghhrrhbbh ggghurder,
ggghurder, gggghurder, grbbhghhghhrrhbbh.
On 14 mei, 12:13, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Caranx latus
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You make the word murdering sound ridiculous. Some brain murdered some
> other brains? Only the brain in the universe can turn out one way or
> another? By all means murder this and that, murder away, utterly
> meaningless without reference to the spiritual. Like something Mickey
> Mouse and Donald Duck would do laughing, MM no pluto, don't murder
> pluto! hahahah, pluto! pluto! DD grbbhghhghhrrhbbh ggghurder,
> ggghurder, gggghurder, grbbhghhghhrrhbbh.
Get back on your medication now, Nando. NOW.
raven1
>You make the word murdering sound ridiculous. Some brain murdered some
>other brains? Only the brain in the universe can turn out one way or
>another? By all means murder this and that, murder away, utterly
>meaningless without reference to the spiritual. Like something Mickey
>Mouse and Donald Duck would do laughing, MM no pluto, don't murder
>pluto! hahahah, pluto! pluto! DD grbbhghhghhrrhbbh ggghurder,
>ggghurder, gggghurder, grbbhghhghhrrhbbh.
Get. Psychiatric. Help. NOW.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You make the word murdering sound ridiculous. Some brain murdered some
> other brains? Only the brain in the universe can turn out one way or
> another? By all means murder this and that, murder away, utterly
> meaningless without reference to the spiritual.
Sats who?
> Like something Mickey
> Mouse and Donald Duck would do laughing, MM no pluto, don't murder
> pluto! hahahah, pluto! pluto! DD grbbhghhghhrrhbbh ggghurder,
> ggghurder, gggghurder, grbbhghhghhrrhbbh.
>
Funny. You seem to be the only one that thinks that. What does that
say about your state of mind (for a loose usage of the word "mind")?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
a subjcective reference to spiritual things? You are wrong, I
represent humanity here, and humans do refer to spiritual things as
what does the job of making things turn out one way or another. For
instance making it turn out to kill, instead of not to kill, that
choice has a spiritual quality to it, which can be subjectively
identified.
Keep practising your moral authority, So it's a judgement on the
choice the other made to kill or not to kill. Apparently the spiritual
quality was evil, so it was subjectively ascertained, so the fact of
killing, becomes the judgement of murder. Relate your choice /
judgement to the choice of the killer, in a big woosh.YOU MURDERED
THEM! Or otherwise make it a long drawn out thing yoooooouuuu
murrrrrrrdered them.........! then you emphasize the deliberate nature
of the killing more by making it drawn out long. Keep on practising
the expression of your moral authorithy yah? mu- mu- murderrrrrrrrr
urdurrrrrr urrrr urrrr So then you don't come across like Mickey
Mouse.
Caranx latus
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
> a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
Yes.
<snip>
Steven L.
"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:liuou55vrv22qo9ag...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT), "nando_r...@yahoo.com"
> <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Blaming muslims is just code
>
> that's true. it's a well known fact that evolutionary biologists from
> the u. of chicago flew 4 planes into buildings on 9/11.
Really??? Is that who it was?
I always thought it was 19 lesbians from Cambridge MA, chanting "Sappho!
Sappho!"
-- Steven L.
bpuharic
>You make the word murdering sound ridiculous.
IOW you don't believe it's murder if it's done by islamist fascists.
Some brain murdered some
>other brains? Only the brain in the universe can turn out one way or
>another?
yep. that's the case. the fact these brains are human makes all the
difference. human brains are valuable. electrons, per se, are not.
if you're an islamist, however, murder is god's way of denying freedom
to those who dont believe in him
you simply can not and will not admit mohammed atta was a murderer. he
was a muslim so you refuse to condemn him
bpuharic
>Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
>a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
yes. not even christians believe that. human beings are valuable in
and of themselves, as humans. their value is not contingent on their
spirituality, their belief in god or anything else
you, as an islamist fanatic, refuse to admit that any non-muslim
fanatic has value.
You are wrong, I
>represent humanity here,
you have approved of what mohammed atta did. you disapprove of women
who are sexy
so you speak for mass killers but you DONT speak for women
>
>Keep practising your moral authority, So it's a judgement on the
>choice the other made to kill or not to kill. Apparently the spiritual
>quality was evil, so it was subjectively ascertained, so the fact of
>killing, becomes the judgement of murder. Relate your choice /
>judgement to the choice of the killer, in a big woosh.YOU MURDERED
>THEM!
i notice you never once condemned what atta did. never. in fact you
said you would rather have him as a friend than a woman who is sexy
because atta has more 'potential'.
you love murder in the name of god
and to those who think nando is unique, he's not. i happened to be
prepping for interviewing an engineer from the university of the
punjab. the head of the philosophy dept there believes pretty much as
nando does.
islamist fanatics are all killers
nando_r...@yahoo.com
explicitly denies freedom is real. Explicitly says what did happen
must happen, and what didn't happen couldn't happen. So wait Mohamed
Atta is just the same fucking freedom denier as you are yourself. Or
should that be same like Godevo, because he did believe in God also,
and also fucking denied freedom is real. Freedom is in the same
category like ballet-dancing huh? What was that huh? That was your
hubris argument about freedom, your arrogance.
On 15 mei, 00:00, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:26:55 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
bpuharic
>One thing is that the university student Mohamed Atta in his testament
>explicitly denies freedom is real
IOW he was a typical islamist just like you. you dont believe freedom
is real either. for you it's a contingent property, depending on
spirituality. for normal people, freedom is something that human
beings have, regardless of whether they're religious. that includes
women
.. Explicitly says what did happen
>must happen, and what didn't happen couldn't happen.
what he believed was in the sovereigntly of allah and the
powerlessness of human beings. IOW he believed, as you do, that you
have to believe in god or youre worthless.
So wait Mohamed
>Atta is just the same fucking freedom denier as you are yourself. Or
>should that be same like Godevo, because he did believe in God also,
so he was spiritual? thanks. i already knew that
>and also fucking denied freedom is real. Freedom is in the same
>category like ballet-dancing huh? What was that huh? That was your
>hubris argument about freedom, your arrogance.
yeah. ballet dancing is a human act, like freedom
electrons dont ballet dance
youre an islamist fanatic
raven1
>Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
>a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
Yes. You are batshit crazy, and need help desperately.
Dick C.
news:nando-b6d19207-c87e-4254-a6eb-3257972a2f89
@v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com:
> Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
> a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
Yes, you are. And you do not represent humanity, you only represent
yourself.
Wombat
> On May 14, 2:30�am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 3:03�am, Lady Godevo <tazzer4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 6:24�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Anti-semitism is also just code. You use anti-semitism because Hitler
> > > > was an anti-semite, and Hitler is the symbol of the incarnation of
> > > > evil. You use the symbol to blame humanity of being inherently evil,
> > > > evil evolved mankind. But I am a human, and I am innocent. And
> > > > speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn out one way or
> > > > another. That is what is known to us humans, except for being misled
> > > > by evil Darwinists. So you are guilty, darwinists are guilty, not
> > > > humanity.
>
> > > > On 14 mei, 00:17, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, 13 May 2010 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> > > > > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >Blaming muslims is just code
>
> > > > > that's true. it's a well known fact that evolutionary biologists from
> > > > > the u. of chicago flew 4 planes into buildings on 9/11.
>
> > > > > .. Darwinists also go out of their way to
>
> > > > > >blame Christians, they also blame Jews on some Israel issues
>
> > > > > ROFLMAO!! the most antisemitic people on earth are MUSLIMS!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You said " And speaking on behalf of humanity, I say that things turn
> > > out one way or
> > > nothing about anything and it definitly doesn't prove "darwinists" are
> > > and hold scientists who accept reality responsible for the atrocities
> > > of all mankind is no different than me holding you responsible for all
> > > grip and wake up to reality and at least attempt to make somekind of
> > > logical sense.
>
> > > Kimberly
>
> > requests, he won't define it so it can be understood. �Apart from that
> > he is a Muslim convert with what seems to be a loose screw.
>
> I can't agree with that assessment. There is absolutely no evidence
> that he has a screw at all, loose or otherwise.
Well, something causes his outbursts of Anglo-Saxon invective.
Perhaps a loose bolt instead?
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
> a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
Yes.
> You are wrong,
Why?
> I
> represent humanity here,
No, you only represent yourself.
> and humans do refer to spiritual things as
> what does the job of making things turn out one way or another.
No, in general and for the most part, they do not.
> For
> instance making it turn out to kill, instead of not to kill,
To eat lasagna, or not to eat lasagna...
> that
> choice has a spiritual quality to it, which can be subjectively
> identified.
Then do so.
>
> Keep practising your moral authority, So it's a judgement on the
> choice the other made to kill or not to kill. Apparently the spiritual
> quality was evil, so it was subjectively ascertained, so the fact of
> killing, becomes the judgement of murder. Relate your choice /
> judgement to the choice of the killer, in a big woosh.YOU MURDERED
> THEM! �Or otherwise make it a long drawn out thing yoooooouuuu
> murrrrrrrdered them.........! then you emphasize the deliberate nature
> of the killing more by making it drawn out long. �Keep on practising
> the expression of your moral authorithy yah? mu- mu- murderrrrrrrrr
> urdurrrrrr urrrr urrrr So then you don't come across like Mickey
> Mouse.
>
Apparently you can only go one paragraph before the drugs wear off and
you drift off into "projection land" where you project your "inner
you" on to those whom you fear.
Have you told your shrink that you have a secret desire to kill
everyone who does not agree with you?
Boikat
raven1
>Really, am I the only one who thinks that reference to murder requires
>a subjcective reference to spiritual things?
Yes.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
had no function of conscience, therefore, had he lived, he should have
been consigned to a mental hospital, to rebuild his subjective
abilities. There is no calculation where at then end of it, it comes
out murder, there is no mathematics of murder, despite what all you
fucking assholes say. It has to be judged subjectively, and what
subjectivity relates to is the spiritual. There would be no fucking
point for subjectivity to relate to the material, because we can use
objective measurement to relate to the material.
On 15 mei, 00:00, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 09:26:55 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
bpuharic
>It's not murder because Atta disbelieved freedom is real.
it doesnt matter what he 'believed'. it's murder. he's an islamist
just like you are. he believed the same things you do. he believes
that all human being must be compelled to believe in god, just as you
do. he believes in violence against non believers just as you do
in fact, there's NOTHING he believed that you don't. he believes
EXACTLY as you do.
Therefore he
>had no function of conscience, therefore, had he lived, he should have
>been consigned to a mental hospital, to rebuild his subjective
>abilities. There is no calculation where at then end of it, it comes
>out murder, there is no mathematics of murder, despite what all you
>fucking assholes say. It has to be judged subjectively, and what
>subjectivity relates to is the spiritual.
subjectivity relates to the spiritual.
atta couldnt have said it better
he was an islamist thug. you are an islamist thug
no difference at all
nando_r...@yahoo.com
no end, they still are accountable for their actions. It doesn't work
that way, people need good knowledge If somebody fucks up the
knowledge of people by feeding them communist or nazi ideology for
instance, or in this case Darwinist freedom denying bullshit, it
reduces their function of conscience. And Darwinists do fuck up
people's knowledge about freedom, you can see right in the thread one
Darwinist after another denying that the judgement of murder requires
a subjective assessment about the spiritual quality of the choice to
kill or not to kill.
On 15 mei, 21:31, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 12:14:54 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Lady Godevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have good new for you Nando. Conscience is not messed with by
scientific theories. Scientific theoris don't try to deal in
morality. That would be the job of religions. It's the religions
that screw with peoples heads and twist what is right and wrong. When
religion can convince someone that not only is murder okay, but even a
good thing, that is when conscience goes awry. So, it is your
religion that convinces people that flying airlplanes into buildings
full of people is a good thing, so it is religion that numbs the
conscience - NOT science. This is great for you because it means you
can actually learn some science and perhaps your brain will be able to
disern right from wrong.
Kimberly
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Lady Godevo schreef:
bpuharic
>So basically you say, you can fuck up people's knowledge about freedom
>no end, they still are accountable for their actions.
uh no. what i say is that you're an islamist fascist and you believe
that people who dont worship your god should be killed.
It doesn't work
>that way, people need good knowledge If somebody fucks up the
>knowledge of people by feeding them communist or nazi ideology
or islamist fascism as you do...
for
>instance, or in this case Darwinist freedom denying bullshit, it
>reduces their function of conscience. And Darwinists do fuck up
>people's knowledge about freedom, you can see right in the thread one
>Darwinist after another denying that the judgement of murder requires
>a subjective assessment about the spiritual quality of the choice to
>kill or not to kill.
you engage in the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. even when confronted
with the FACT mohammed atta is an islamist fascist you wave away his
MURDER of 3000 people, since he did it in the name of your god.
and that's what you call 'freedom'
Boikat
Lady Godevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sadly, your only reply is cursing and dismissal, how pathetic. Very
like you, but still, pathetic. Thank you for proving my point. Your
religion has so warped your brain that you do not know right from
wrong and believe that simple dismissal and bad language will rule the
day. Try again.
Kimberly
Kimberly
nando_r...@yahoo.com
the flourishing function on your calculator and it came out murder.
Meaningless.
The no true scotsman fallacy is when you refer to a guy who denies
things turn out one way or another, and then deny he is a true
darwinist.
bpuharic schreef:
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again, it doesnt mean anything when you say murder. You just pushed
> the flourishing function on your calculator and it came out murder.
> Meaningless.
>
More projection. You do not see it as "murder" because those killed,
or being killed, are not human because they are not Muslims
> The no true scotsman fallacy is when you refer to a guy who denies
> things turn out one way or another, and then deny he is a true
> darwinist.
Damn, you're an idiot.
Boikat
odin
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again, it doesnt mean anything when you say murder. You just pushed
> the flourishing function on your calculator and it came out murder.
> Meaningless.
>
> The no true scotsman fallacy is when you refer to a guy who denies
> things turn out one way or another, and then deny he is a true
> darwinist.
No true Darwinist? I think that would be no true Flewtwist.
bpuharic
>Again, it doesnt mean anything when you say murder
it means something to me. it means nothing to you since, to an
islamist fanatic, murder isn't murder if it's committed against
kufr...unbelievers
>
>The no true scotsman fallacy is when you refer to a guy who denies
>things turn out one way or another, and then deny he is a true
>darwinist.
uh no. it's defined as a circular argument...
and you're an islamist fanatic, no different than atta
nando_r...@yahoo.com
destroying knowledge about freedom here and now in the thread, and we
see Atta denying things turn out one way or another in his testament.
bpuharic schreef:
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And after all the bullshit has passed, we see the darwinists
> destroying knowledge about freedom here and now in the thread,
Destroying your personal delusions is not destroying "knowledge of
freedom".
> and we
> see Atta denying things turn out one way or another in his testament.
Because of his Islamic beliefs. His Islamic beliefs must have
destroyed some "knowledge of freedom" of some kind. His Islamic
beliefs must have dictated he take actions in which he felt had no
choice but to act upon. Gee, looks like fi anything "destroys the
knowledge of freedom", it's religious beliefs, and not science, the
ToE or NS.
Boikat
bpuharic
>And after all the bullshit has passed, we see the darwinists
>destroying knowledge about freedom here and now in the thread, and we
>see Atta denying things turn out one way or another in his testament.
>
and yet
it was islamists who flew those planes into buildings
not darwinists
the islamist fascist believes in murder THEN tries to legitimize it by
saying killing unbelievers is fine.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
don't make any sense at all. Would the world be a better place if all
the Darwinists up and died? I think so, but then you could simply get
new Darwinists again. I think if practical knowledge about how things
behave freely was on the curriculum, then Darwinism and Darwinists
would be basically gone. I think parents would choose to have such
knowledge on the curriculum, if they were offered the choice.
On 16 mei, 15:41, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 06:13:52 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
Desertphile
Nando doesn't even believe murder exists: according to him, murder
is impossible.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> They weren't all unbelievers in those buildings. So really, you just
> don't make any sense at all.
The vast majority were non-Islamic. Any that were, well, what's a
small sacrifice for "the cause"?
> Would the world be a better place if all
> the Darwinists up and died? I think so,
But, then again, you are a mentally unballanced fanatic. Geee, you
have something in common with the Chancilor of Germany from the 1930's
and '40's.
> but then you could simply get
> new Darwinists again.
You can't stop the truth.
> I think if practical knowledge about how things
> behave freely was on the curriculum,
What things would those be? Rocks? Rocks do not "behave" freely, or
otherwise. "Behave" is another word that implies some form of
internally motivated willful or reflexive activity. But, as with
"freedom to choose to turn out one way or the other", that does not
apply to rocks, or other inanimate objects either.
> then Darwinism and Darwinists
> would be basically gone.
Why?
> I think parents would choose to have such
> knowledge on the curriculum, if they were offered the choice.
Knowledge of what? Your personal and mush-headed concept of "freedom"
that insists rocks can think? Why would you want anyone to waste time
with your inane blathercrap?
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
realized, that's how much knowledge about freedom you have, no
functional logic. The world would be a different and better place, if
the people on it believed freedom was real, also on an intellectual
level. Less fucking nerds, less fucking asshole politicians like Obama
and whatnot, who become like machines when they try their best. Obama
the most boring president of the USA ever, the USA is not the USA
anymore.
Lady Godevo
>
> - Show quoted text -
You right George W took care of that. In 8 short years he almost
collapsed the economy, lied to invade Iraq, and made the USA the
laughing stock of the world because people here were stupid enough to
elect an imbicile not once but twice.
Kimberly
nando_r...@yahoo.com
americana on stage about freedom, God the heart and such, right
backstage their laughing it off the speech they just gave, saying like
"I can't believe they bought that, the heart is just a pump!, I was
like just pumping all of them" "look at me, look at me, I'm a magic
sky pixie called God wooowoooowoo" "freedom, like the micro world
doesn't apply to the macro world, HELLOOO science 101"
> Kimberly- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Boikat
> realized,
Actually, several. One of them is "results". Look it up, asshole.
> that's how much knowledge about freedom you have, no
> functional logic.
And, as usual, you're full of crap. The is the *result* of your
decision to be an asshole.
> The world would be a different and better place, if
> the people on it believed freedom was real,
Most do. Some of them think they are free to kill others because they
believe in different gods, or don't agree with a particular
interpretation of some ancient religious text. OTOH, I've not heard
of any wars being fought over any particular scientific theory.
Hmmm. Isn't that odd?
> also on an intellectual
> level.
What would you know about "intellectual levels"?
> Less fucking nerds,
You mean less people who are smarter than you, who are also getting
laied? Tough shit, asshole.
> less fucking asshole politicians like Obama
> and whatnot, who become like machines when they try their best. Obama
> the most boring president of the USA ever, the USA is not the USA
> anymore.
I see the drugs wore off again.
Boikat
>