Chrissy Lies About What He Said

[Joe Bruno]

me (Joe Bruno change)

5:41 PM (8 minutes ago)


On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 5:26:40 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 16:38:16 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
> <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 7:07:28 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 1:50:41 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:00:41 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
- hide quoted text -
> >> > <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >On Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 12:07:30 AM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> > >> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 8:56:33 PM UTC-8, nature bats last wrote:
> >> > >> > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:49:08 PM UTC-7, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> > >> > > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 6:35:53 PM UTC-8, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> > >> > > > On Tuesday, 29 December 2015 18:07:21 UTC, Joe Bruno wrote:
> >> > >> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > This prominent scientist was an Augustinian friar.
> >> > >> > > > > Who says science and religion are in conflict?
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > .> > A "prominent scientist" that even Charles Darwin hadn't
> >> > >> > .> > heard of.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > .> You can prove that???
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Darwin had heard of Mendel, but was unfamiliar with
> >> > >> > his work. Which is regarded as enormously unfortunate --
> >> > >> > Darwin himself raised three objections to his own theory,
> >> > >> > confessed that any one of the three would suffice to
> >> > >> > scuttle the theory, and expressed the hope that
> >> > >> > future work would answer those objections.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Mendel's work, had Darwin understood it, would have answered
> >> > >> > one of those three.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > The rediscovery of Mendel's work at the turn of the twentieth
> >> > >> > century put evolutionary theory on the path which led to
> >> > >> > the "modern synthesis".
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Seth
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes, and all that from a clergyman, who many atheists claim cannot be
> >> > >> rational or scientific. So much for the Conflict Theory.
>
> Liar.
>

YOU SAID IT RIGHT HERE:


Christopher A. Lee


12/28/15
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:45:30 -0500, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:08:17 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
><joebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
>>
>>The idea that religion and science are always in conflict is no longer
>>accepted by most scientists.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KneOdEDwDEc
Bullshit.

>Religion and science aren't intended to answer the same questions,
>according to Gould, et al, so if there is a conflict it is almost
>always because the former oversteps its bounds into the territory of
>the latter. They are, (or at least ought to be) as Gould put it,
>"non-overlapping magisteria".
Gould was trying to be nice, and stupid theists read too much into it.

As usual, Mad Joe was talking through his rectal orifice with his
unsolicited nonsense.

Because as soon as religionists make claims in the scientific arena,
they have to support them scientifically - which even they know they
can't do.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

I read it as Christopher said consistently that theists cannot support their claims scientifically.

You are just showing your dirty ass here, Mad Joe.

[viva padrepio]

If atheists can have theories, why can't theists? Not that we need them, though, because we have the Bible, and you don't. :-P

[Prince Michael]

On Friday, January 1, 2016 at 6:17:10 PM UTC-8, hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

Which apparently contradicted what he just said. It looks like atheists make strange claims sometimes.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

Let's get this straight. Christopher calls Bruno a liar when Bruno claims that atheists claim that religionists cannot get science straight. Then Bruno quotes Christopher as stating that religionists cannot get science straight.

It just goes to substantiate the fact that Christopher is on auto pilot when he calls everyone he disagrees with a liar.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Theories are based on facts.
Theistic theories are based on fakes.

Do you see the difference now? Btw, bible is a con book, with all the fake stories in it.

[Ted&Alice]

Stop lying.

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

proved I lied. You must be disgruntled.

[Christopher A. Lee]

It's nothing to do with disagreement and everything to do with lies
like both Mad Joe's and Hemorrhoid Seven's.

What I _have_ said, is that if scientists are theists, they step aside
from their religious beliefs when they do their science.

So Mad Joe was lying about what I said.

And Hemorrhoid Seven was lying that it's mere disagreement.

If it seems that I call so many theist trolls, liars - it's because so
many _are_.

[Joe Bruno]

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 7:13:38 PM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 02:25:38 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
> <festus...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> >Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Let's get this straight. Christopher calls Bruno a liar when Bruno
> >> claims that atheists claim that religionists cannot get science
> >> straight. Then Bruno quotes Christopher as stating that
> >> religionists cannot get science straight.
> >>
> >> It just goes to substantiate the fact that Christopher is on auto
> >> pilot when he calls everyone he disagrees with a liar.
> >
> >Stop lying.
>
> It's nothing to do with disagreement and everything to do with lies
> like both Mad Joe's and Hemorrhoid Seven's.
>
> What I _have_ said, is that if scientists are theists, they step aside
> from their religious beliefs when they do their science.
>
> So Mad Joe was lying about what I said.
>

I posted what you said, you stupid jackass. It was your post.
YOU BEEN CAUGHT LYING AGAIN.

[Ted&Alice]

Prove you didn't lie. You must be disGRUMPled. (Gotcha!)

[Ted&Alice]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 02:25:38 +0000 (UTC), "Ted&Alice"
> <festus...@yandex.com> wrote:
>
> > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Let's get this straight. Christopher calls Bruno a liar when
> Bruno >> claims that atheists claim that religionists cannot get
> science >> straight. Then Bruno quotes Christopher as stating that
> >> religionists cannot get science straight.
> > >
> >> It just goes to substantiate the fact that Christopher is on auto
> >> pilot when he calls everyone he disagrees with a liar.
> >
> > Stop lying.
>
> It's nothing to do with disagreement and everything to do with lies
> like both Mad Joe's and Hemorrhoid Seven's.
>

> What I have said, is that if scientists are theists, they step aside

> from their religious beliefs when they do their science.
>
> So Mad Joe was lying about what I said.
>
> And Hemorrhoid Seven was lying that it's mere disagreement.
>
> If it seems that I call so many theist trolls, liars - it's because so

> many are.

Not "so many" of them. They ALL lie. All of them.

And nobody ever pays any attention to Joe when he accuses people of
lying. He's just wasting his time and energy.

[Prince Michael]

That is the way I read it.

[Prince Michael]

Lying yourself there.
CAUGHT.

[Ted&Alice]

Do you like being an idiot?

[hhya...@gmail.com]

And you love Mad Joe's lie because you are him????

[Astero...@yahoo.com]

On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 5:09:53 AM UTC-8, Ted&Alice wrote:
> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:25:42 PM UTC-8, Ted&Alice wrote:
> > > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's get this straight. Christopher calls Bruno a liar when
> > > > Bruno claims that atheists claim that religionists cannot get
> > > > science straight. Then Bruno quotes Christopher as stating that
> > > > religionists cannot get science straight.
> > > >
> > > > It just goes to substantiate the fact that Christopher is on auto
> > > > pilot when he calls everyone he disagrees with a liar.
> > >
> > > Stop lying.
> >
> > proved I lied. You must be disgruntled.
>
> Prove you didn't lie. You must be disGRUMPled. (Gotcha!)

you're on an emotional streak.

[Cloud Hobbit]

You can't have a theory without evidence and observation to support said theory. You guys never provide any real evidence. It's never peer reviewed, because you all know that it would not pass review.

Why do you guys persist when you know there is no way you are going to convert us, especially when you have no evidence. No evidence ever. Not even a tiny little shred. The only thing you have is the fact that most of your Holy book is crap. So many things that just aren't real, Jews as slaves in Egypt, Moses, 40 years in the desert, Jesus, Adam and Eve, Creation, earth being only 6000 years old. It just goes on and on. I don't understand why, in the face of all the proven knowledge we now have about the Bible, why any of you still cling to this nonsense?

It's because you cling to this crap when we all know it is fiction, that makes atheists think that theists are retarded.

[Prince Michael]

Why would I want to know what it is like to be you for?

[Tim]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:17:58 AM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> you're on an emotional streak.

You're on an uninterrupted idiot streak. By the looks of it you're never going to break out of it.

[Prince Michael]

On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 11:16:12 AM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:17:58 AM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > you're on an emotional streak.
>
> You're on an uninterrupted idiot streak.

I don't see that whatsoever. Maybe you are hallucinating here online or daydreaming or wishing it was that way?

[Ted&Alice]

Yup. Any more and I'll explode.

[Ted&Alice]

Translation: "yes"

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Who is saying you have any sight?
Believers tend to upgrade themselves while incapable....