Re: Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists to stop selling drugs that prevent pregnancy or assist in euthanasia.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:33 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>>>>
>>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. I've discussed this with folks who follow other
>>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>>>>
>>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>>>
>>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>>
>> Our God is a living God.
>>
>Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
Except that I talk to him everyday. His answers are truly astounding.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Dan Listermann
If I recall correctly, Jimmy Stewart's character talked to and got answers
from Harvey as well. All in all, I am unimpressed!
Syd
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>
> >>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. I've discussed this with folks who follow other
> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>
> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>
> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>
> >> Our God is a living God.
>
> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
>
> Except that I talk to him everyday. His answers are truly astounding.
>
>
Your delusions are not our problem, Dork.
PDW
duke
I'm sure to live life according to the movies.
Budikka
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>
> >>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. I've discussed this with folks who follow other
> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>
> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>
> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>
> >> Our God is a living God.
>
> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
>
> Except that I talk to him everyday. His answers are truly astounding.
Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
Budikka
Kadaitcha Man
> Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
> Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
>
> Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
No, not at all. It's more like your unthinking, self-deluded pseudo-
superiority.
Suppose he did pray to some god. Suppose some god did indeed answer his
prayers.
Suppose the "Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof" requires you to
pray to a god that you don't believe in and actively deride, as you just
did.
Suppose that same god decided to ignore your pathetic bleats.
With a bit of luck, the supposed god's foot will come screaming out of
the sky and squish you into a lump of strawberry jelly, and all before
before you can say "Fuck me dead!".
--
I'm one of those linuxfux. So sue me.
Kadaitcha Man
> I suspect that Ialdabaoth created Imperfection so that on this day Sat,
> 3 Oct 2009 11:54:50 +0000 (UTC), one purporting to be Kadaitcha Man
> <an...@no.email> could write :
> (Not half as kookie as what you and that other entity vomits up.). .
> . . . . . . . In the beginning was the Nonsense
> . . . . . . . And the Nonsense was with God
> . . . . . . . And God was the Nonsense.
I take it that supposition isn't your strong suit.
> Gospel of John. Ch.1 V1 (Correct translation).
suppose : Verb
supposition : Noun
1. an idea or a statement assumed to be true
2. the act of supposing
supposition –noun
1. the act of supposing.
2. something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis.
hypothesis -noun
1: an assumption made for the sake of argument
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical
or empirical consequences
assumption -noun
1: a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon
presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
suppose -verb
1: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal
suppose -verb
1: to assume (something), as for the sake of argument or as part of a
proposition or theory: "Suppose the distance to be one mile."
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
Budikka
Suppose you got a clue? Oh wait, like *that's* going to happen! LoL!
But thanks for admitting openly in these public forums that you can't
offer any useful evidence for any gods either. All you can do is
bleat like all the other sheep.
Oh, and way to go with adding irrelevant dipshit news groups you
clueless fuck.
Budikka
Dan Listermann
life seems to revolve around one.
The Chief Instigator
> On Oct 2, 2:19?pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:33 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>>
>> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>>
>> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>>
>> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>>
>> >> Our God is a living God.
>>
>> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
>>
>
> Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
> Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
>
> Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
>
> Budikka
Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
ramblings.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 4, Houston 3 (October 2)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 3 at Manitoba, 7:35
Kadaitcha Man
> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
> ramblings.
Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
of atheism is tenable.
HTH & GF
The Chief Instigator
He's been addicted to that for years...so when Dale and I go over to a
city not so far west of where he lives, to see a Louisiana IceGators
game (yes, there is pro hockey there), he'll start muttering about the
police departments knowing when I crossed the state line. Such are
the effects of being addicted to sacramental wine.
§ñühwø£f
pile of:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>> ramblings.
>
> Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
> the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
> of atheism is tenable.
>
> HTH & GF
>
How you been lately? Its often the case that people facing death will
"find Jesus".
Jus Wonderin.
^_^
--
http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
http://ltsaloon.org
http://www.ramusa.org/
http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000, Kadaitcha Man pinched out a steaming
> pile of:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>
>>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>> ramblings.
>>
>> Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>> the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a
>> position of atheism is tenable.
>>
>> HTH & GF
>>
> How you been lately?
Been getting laid. You?
> Its often the case that people facing death will
> "find Jesus".
Is it?
> Jus Wonderin.
I believe it's called Pascal's Wager.
> ^_^
HTH
Les
"Suppose some god did indeed answer his prayers. "
(sung) There's a little ditty
They're singing in the city
Espeshly when they've been
On the gin
Or the beer
If you've got the patience,
Your own imaginations
Will tell you just exactly what you want to hear...
Oom-pah-pah! Oom-pah-pah!
That's how it goes,
Oom-pah-pah! Oom-pah-pah!
Ev'ryone knows.
They all suppose what they want to suppose
When they hear...oom-pah-pah!!
From the musical 'Oliver' adapted by Lionel Bart
from Dicken's Oiver Twist
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Les
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>> ramblings.
>
>Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
>of atheism is tenable.
Proceed where?
I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Kadaitcha Man" <an...@no.email> wrote in message
news:364b44.i...@news.alt.net...
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>> ramblings.
>
> Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
> the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
> of atheism is tenable.
>
Atheism is neither incoherent nor inconsistent.
Kadaitcha Man
> On Oct 3, 6:54 am, Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:34:53 -0700, Budikka wrote:
>> > Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
>> > Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
>>
>> > Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
>>
>> No, not at all. It's more like your unthinking, self-deluded pseudo-
>> superiority.
>>
>> Suppose he did pray to some god. Suppose some god did indeed answer his
>> prayers.
>>
>> Suppose the "Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof" requires you to
>> pray to a god that you don't believe in and actively deride, as you
>> just did.
>>
>> Suppose that same god decided to ignore your pathetic bleats.
>>
>> With a bit of luck, the supposed god's foot will come screaming out of
>> the sky and squish you into a lump of strawberry jelly, and all before
>> before you can say "Fuck me dead!".
>>
>> --
>> I'm one of those linuxfux. So sue me.
>
> Suppose you got a clue? Oh wait, like *that's* going to happen! LoL!
>
> But thanks for admitting
Three sentences begining with "Suppose", one beginning with an actual
supposition, and one begining with a comparison. Since when did four
speculative sentences equate to an admission of any kind?
Alternate question: English isn't your first language, is it?
> openly in these public forums that you can't
> offer any useful evidence for any gods either.
Don't look now but you are reifying.
> All you can do is bleat
> like all the other sheep.
>
> Oh, and way to go with adding irrelevant dipshit news groups you
> clueless fuck.
Not so. The regulars in alt.usenet.kooks are interested in people like
yourself, and the regulars in 24hoursupport.helpdesk are people like
yourself.
Please do note that I extended the courtesy of including you in the
possible set of human beings, otherwise known as people. Hell, just one
or two more flukes of DNA randomness and you'd be a freaking banana. hey.
> Budikka
...the Pitjantjatjara word for banana.
HTH
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>
>>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>> ramblings.
>>
>>Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>>the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a
>>position of atheism is tenable.
>
> Proceed where?
>
> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
proceed: v. intr.
1: to come forth from a source.
proceed: v. intr.
To come from a source; originate or issue
proceed: v. intr.
to go or come forth; issue (often fol. by from).
proceed: v. intr.
move ahead; travel onward in time or space
proceed: v. intr.
proceed, go, follow a certain course
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from:
> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
> Loser of the War of the Roses
English isn't your strong point, eh.
duke
Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. I do
and you don't.
It's your loss.
Les
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:29:47 +0100, Les wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>>> ramblings.
>>>
>>>Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>>>the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a
>>>position of atheism is tenable.
>>
>> Proceed where?
>>
>> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
>
>proceed: v. intr.
>1: to come forth from a source.
I was born wthout any beliefs regarding gods and will die without
any beliefs regarding gods.
>proceed: v. intr.
>To come from a source; originate or issue
ditto
>
>proceed: v. intr.
>to go or come forth; issue (often fol. by from).
I am staying exactly where I am. On solid ground
>proceed: v. intr.
>move ahead; travel onward in time or space
This was the meaning I took in my answer
I am happy to remain without any beliefs regarding
claimed gods. No reason to change.
>
>proceed: v. intr.
>proceed, go, follow a certain course
Ditto
>
>> Les Hellawell
>> Greetings from:
>> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
>> Loser of the War of the Roses
We all lost in that war. All we got was a change
of person claiming to rule by divine right
>English isn't your strong point, eh.
Never claimed it was but I know what
'proceed' means well enough
Thank you for you interest in my position
wrt absence of religious belief.
Syd
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
> > Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
> > ramblings.
>
> Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
> the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
> of atheism is tenable.
>
Nope.
PDW
Syd
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 2:19 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:33 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>
> >> >>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. I've discussed this with folks who follow other
> >> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>
> >> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>
> >> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>
> >> >> Our God is a living God.
>
> >> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
>
> >> Except that I talk to him everyday. His answers are truly astounding.
>
> >Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
> >Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
> >Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
>
> Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. I do
> and you don't.
>
So, as Chris Lee says, you have to believe to believe.
Your pathetic.
> It's your loss.
>
>
Nope. My only loss is being able to drop that junk.
PDW
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man recycled his geriatric-diaper snacks with §ñühw€£f's
> news:364jbu.i...@news.alt.net:
>>
>> ...the Pitjantjatjara word for banana.
>>
>> HTH
>
> The Pitjantjatjara word for "retard"
> is "§ñühw€£f"...
>
> The Pitjantjatjara word for "dumbass" is "§ñühw€£f"...
>
> The Pitjantjatjara word for "loaded geriatric diapers" is also
> "§ñühw€£f"...
>
> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey dookie"
> is "§ñühw€£f" as well.
Booleshit.
The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey dookie"
is 'kadaitcha'.
Oh, fuck. Hang on... I call mistranslation.
Bucky Breeder
using teh news:364plt.i...@news.alt.net:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:55:44 +0000, Bucky Breeder wrote:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man recycled his geriatric-diaper snacks
>> with ���hw��f's news:364jbu.i...@news.alt.net:
>>>
>>> ...the Pitjantjatjara word for banana.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>
>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "retard"
>> is "���hw��f"...
>>
>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "dumbass" is "���hw��f"...
>>
>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "loaded geriatric diapers"
>> is also "���hw��f"...
>>
>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile
>> of monkey dookie" is "§ñühw€£f" as well.
>
> Booleshit.
>
> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile
> of monkey dookie" is 'kadaitcha'.
>
> Oh, fuck. Hang on... I call mistranslation.
If they named 'Scary Movie' after ���hw��f,
it'd be 'Dookie Movie'.
If they named an airline after ���hw��f,
it'd be 'US Dookieways'.
If ���hw��f joined the Spice Girls, s/he'd be
"Dookie Spice".
If ���hw��f sang parts of the show without musical
instruments in the background, s/he'd be "CacaPella"
HTH.
(I'd bet ���hw��f singing "Amazing Dookie"
CacaPella would interesting for the
next tent revival meeting circuit.)
--
I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; ; and *NO*, that is NOT
a Jedi light-sabre in my pocket; and yet, I'm NOT
particularly happy to see you; furthermore, I'm in the
Gnatzi SPNAKIN' Behnezz... and behnezz is *a-boomin'*!
Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man snotbubbled this out §ñühw€£f's nose using teh
> news:364plt.i...@news.alt.net:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:55:44 +0000, Bucky Breeder wrote:
>>
>>> Kadaitcha Man recycled his geriatric-diaper snacks with §ñühw€£f's
>>> news:364jbu.i...@news.alt.net:
>>>>
>>>> ...the Pitjantjatjara word for banana.
>>>>
>>>> HTH
>>>
>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "retard"
>>> is "§ñühw€£f"...
>>>
>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "dumbass" is "§ñühw€£f"...
>>>
>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "loaded geriatric diapers" is also
>>> "§ñühw€£f"...
>>>
>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey
>>> dookie" is "§ñÌhw€£f" as well.
>>
>> Booleshit.
>>
>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey
>> dookie" is 'kadaitcha'.
>>
>> Oh, fuck. Hang on... I call mistranslation.
>
> If they named 'Scary Movie' after §ñühw€£f, it'd be 'Dookie Movie'.
>
> If they named an airline after §ñühw€£f, it'd be 'US Dookieways'.
>
> If §ñühw€£f joined the Spice Girls, s/he'd be "Dookie Spice".
>
> If §ñühw€£f sang parts of the show without musical instruments in the
> background, s/he'd be "CacaPella"
>
> HTH.
If "they" named any movie after you it'd not be worth watching.
Budikka
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
> >> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
> >> ramblings.
>
> >Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
> >the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a position
> >of atheism is tenable.
>
> Proceed where?
>
> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
>
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from:
> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
Scratcha Boy seems to be under the juvenile delusion that it isn't
those asserting there's something else (in this case, a god) who need
to justify their assertion, but those who ask for evidence of this
assertion to, instead, disprove an assertion which has yet to find any
objective or scientific support!
That what kind of a puerile dumb ass he is. He's your usual theistic
waste of skin we meet all-too-often here.
Budikka
Budikka
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 2, 2:19 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:33 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
>
> >> >>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. I've discussed this with folks who follow other
> >> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
>
> >> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
>
> >> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
>
> >> >> Our God is a living God.
>
> >> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
>
> >> Except that I talk to him everyday. His answers are truly astounding.
>
> >Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
> >Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
> >Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
>
> Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. I do
> and you don't.
Thanks for proving that you're still the most vacuous coward on
Usenet. I'll that this thread to the huge list of Threads-Duke-Fled,
you worhtless piece of shit.
Budikka
Kadaitcha Man
> On Oct 3, 10:29 am, Les <les_...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>
>> >> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>> >> ramblings.
>>
>> >Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and
>> >inconsistent, the burden lies with the atheist to prove that
>> >proceeding from a position of atheism is tenable.
>>
>> Proceed where?
>>
>> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
>>
>> Les Hellawell
>> Greetings from:
>> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
>
> Scratcha Boy seems to be under the juvenile delusion that it isn't those
> asserting there's something else (in this case, a god) who need to
> justify their assertion, but those who ask for evidence of this
> assertion to, instead, disprove an assertion which has yet to find any
> objective or scientific support!
And rightly so. Since atheism is provably illogical, it is reasonable
that you atheists are forced to carry the burden of proof to consistently
define your atheism, which must be done by you to establish your atheism
as a coherent position from which to proceed to discussion.
Of course, it is utterly impossible to establish atheism as tenable on
the grounds that atheism is provably illogical, therefore atheism is both
inconsistent and incoherent. And neither any amount of bleating by you
nor the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny atheistic logik will
ever fix it.
HTH
> That what kind of a puerile dumb ass he is. He's your usual theistic
> waste of skin we meet all-too-often here.
>
> Budikka
<aside>
<indicates up>
I'd call Budikka a very shallow thinker, however he doesn't appear to
have a brain with which to think.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
duke
>> Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. �I do
>> and you don't.
>Thanks for proving that you're still the most vacuous coward on
>Usenet. I'll that this thread to the huge list of Threads-Duke-Fled,
>you worhtless piece of shit.
Yet here I am still correcting you constantly.
You're so lame brained that you accuse me of running from threads that I never
even participated in.
duke
Old dud. She gets her panties is a twist at the slightest sign of opposition.
Yap
Yap
We don't have time to define and redefine the concept of "no god/gods
in this world" as much as we cannot define an alien species.
Why should any one need to take the trouble to explain atheism to a
deluded mind?
>
> Of course, it is utterly impossible to establish atheism as tenable on
> the grounds that atheism is provably illogical, therefore atheism is both
> inconsistent and incoherent. And neither any amount of bleating by you
> nor the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny atheistic logik will
> ever fix it.
And it existed in children from birth, animals and all life forms.
>
> HTH
>
> > That what kind of a puerile dumb ass he is. He's your usual theistic
> > waste of skin we meet all-too-often here.
>
> > Budikka
>
> <aside>
> <indicates up>
> I'd call Budikka a very shallow thinker, however he doesn't appear to
> have a brain with which to think.
>
> --
> Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Yap
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. I do
> >> and you don't.
> >Thanks for proving that you're still the most vacuous coward on
> >Usenet. I'll that this thread to the huge list of Threads-Duke-Fled,
> >you worhtless piece of shit.
>
> Yet here I am still correcting you constantly.
>
> You're so lame brained that you accuse me of running from threads that I never
> even participated in.
Even if you did not publicly participate, you may be putting your
deluded mind into it mentally.
Kadaitcha Man
Of course you don't have time. I already said no amount of bleating nor
the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny atheistic logik will
ever define it coherently. Ever, as in never, is a very long time.
>> Of course, it is utterly impossible to establish atheism as tenable on
>> the grounds that atheism is provably illogical, therefore atheism is
>> both inconsistent and incoherent. And neither any amount of bleating by
>> you nor the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny atheistic
>> logik will ever fix it.
> The atheism is by itself logical, and tenable. And it existed in
> children from birth, animals and all life forms.
Proof, please.
I await the lack of it.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Les
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:51:39 -0700, Budikka wrote:
>
>> On Oct 3, 10:29�am, Les <les_...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Where's Duke's proof? �In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>> >> ramblings.
>>>
>>> >Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and
>>> >inconsistent, the burden lies with the atheist to prove that
>>> >proceeding from a position of atheism is tenable.
>>>
>>> Proceed where?
>>>
>>> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
>>>
>>> Les Hellawell
>>> Greetings from:
>>> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
>>
>> Scratcha Boy seems to be under the juvenile delusion that it isn't those
>> asserting there's something else (in this case, a god) who need to
>> justify their assertion, but those who ask for evidence of this
>> assertion to, instead, disprove an assertion which has yet to find any
>> objective or scientific support!
>
>And rightly so. Since atheism is provably illogical, it is reasonable
>that you atheists are forced to carry the burden of proof to consistently
>define your atheism, which must be done by you to establish your atheism
>as a coherent position from which to proceed to discussion.
Well I a always happy to discuss you deficiencies in promoting
you claims there is such a creature as a god. See below
It matters not to me what you think of atheism, you can think
and say whatever you lke as in the end it is just your opinion
which is of no value to me.
>Of course, it is utterly impossible to establish atheism as tenable on
>the grounds that atheism is provably illogical, therefore atheism is both
>inconsistent and incoherent. And neither any amount of bleating by you
>nor the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny atheistic logik will
>ever fix it.
Again just your opinion. An opinion is only as good as the evidence
that suports it. Since you have only asserted evidence your opinion
on the subject is worthless.
I know exactly why I do not accept your god claims as valid as it
is only ever offered on the 'say-so' of the claimant. Hardly grounds
for sharing your wierd beliefs s it?
When you people finally realise that accepting things just on your
say-so no longer works except for the terminally stupid you might
begin to understand why your religion has all but collapsed in Europe
and has fallen close to 50% in backward USA.
Well its you call and nothing to do with me.
>> That what kind of a puerile dumb ass he is. He's your usual theistic
>> waste of skin we meet all-too-often here.
Certainly a poor advocate for whatever he believes. The standard of
theistic advocacy for their extraordinary god claims seem to have
fallen quite a bit since my last visiit here, not that it was very
high to start with.
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:29:48 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> wrote:
>> provably illogical
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> it is just your opinion
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
>> provably illogical
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Again just your opinion.
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
AZ Nomad
>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:54:24 +0100, Les wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:29:48 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
>> wrote:
>>> provably illogical
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> it is just your opinion
>Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
How eloquent. "You're dumb" is the kind of statement a two year old
might make. "You're a fucking idiot" is the kind of statement that a
so called adult with a mind of a two year old and a vocabulary to match
might make.
Idiots like you provide scores of datapoints that in reality, religion
causes brain damage.
>>> provably illogical
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Again just your opinion.
>Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
Use up your five word vocabulary already?
Not only are you a moron, ignorant, and obtuse, you're also a boring
asshole.
<plonk> (I'm surprised I didn't plonk you ages ago; you must have
weaseled out by nymshifting)
Kadaitcha Man
Victolly!
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Bucky Breeder
with news:364s17.i...@news.alt.net:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:30:27 +0000, Bucky Breeder wrote:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man snotbubbled this out ���hw��f's nose using teh
>> news:364plt.i...@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:55:44 +0000, Bucky Breeder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kadaitcha Man recycled his geriatric-diaper snacks with
>>>> ���hw��f's news:364jbu.i...@news.alt.net:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...the Pitjantjatjara word for banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>
>>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "retard"
>>>> is "���hw��f"...
>>>>
>>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "dumbass" is "���hw��f"...
>>>>
>>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "loaded geriatric diapers" is also
>>>> "���hw��f"...
>>>>
>>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey
>>>> dookie" is "���hw��f" as well.
>>>
>>> Booleshit.
>>>
>>> The Pitjantjatjara word for "alas, I stepped in a pile of monkey
>>> dookie" is 'kadaitcha'.
>>>
>>> Oh, fuck. Hang on... I call mistranslation.
>>
>> If they named 'Scary Movie' after ���hw��f, it'd be 'Dookie
>> Movie'.
>>
>> If they named an airline after ���hw��f, it'd be 'US Dookieways'.
>>
>> If ���hw��f joined the Spice Girls, s/he'd be "Dookie Spice".
>>
>> If ���hw��f sang parts of the show without musical instruments in
>> the background, s/he'd be "CacaPella"
>>
>> HTH.
>
> If "they" named any movie after you it'd not be worth watching.
And s/he shrieked *that* cacapella! Such a show!!!
<aside> [Like this defective can even ignore MY posts...
you *KNOW* s/he'd be in line for the movie version!]
If "they" named any move after you it'd be "Field of Dookie".
Or "The Snotnoggin Candidate". Or "Dookienator vs. Poopieboi".
Or "The Three Dookie Stooges". Or "Three Dookies and a Poop".
Or "The Dookie-tard Always Rings Twice"...
Syd
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from him. I do
> >> and you don't.
> >Thanks for proving that you're still the most vacuous coward on
> >Usenet. I'll that this thread to the huge list of Threads-Duke-Fled,
> >you worhtless piece of shit.
>
> Yet here I am still correcting you constantly.
>
You mean, anoying and lying about her constantly.
> You're so lame brained that you accuse me of running from threads that I never
> even participated in.
>
>
How that old senility, Dork?
Don't you love selective memory?
PDW
Syd
Too bad you are no kind of opposition.
You are a laughing stock. A pin coushin. A chew toy.
No body here takes your ramblings seriously at all, Dork. Your simply
ejecting hot air.
Deal.
PDW
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 12:29:48 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> in alt.abortion with message-id <366q0t....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:51:39 -0700, Budikka wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 3, 10:29 am, Les <les_...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man
>>>> <a...@no.email> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his
>>>> >> random ramblings.
>>>>
>>>> >Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and
>>>> >inconsistent, the burden lies with the atheist to prove that
>>>> >proceeding from a position of atheism is tenable.
>>>>
>>>> Proceed where?
>>>>
>>>> I am staying exactly where I am thank you very much.
>>>>
>>>> Les Hellawell
>>>> Greetings from:
>>>> YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
>>>
>>> Scratcha Boy seems to be under the juvenile delusion that it isn't
>>> those asserting there's something else (in this case, a god) who need
>>> to justify their assertion, but those who ask for evidence of this
>>> assertion to, instead, disprove an assertion which has yet to find any
>>> objective or scientific support!
>>
>>And rightly so. Since atheism is provably illogical,
>
> Not hardly.
The phrase "provably illogical" is an explicit assertion.
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> in alt.abortion with message-id <364b44.i...@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:13:42 +0000, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>>
>>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>> ramblings.
>>
>>Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>>the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a
>>position of atheism is tenable.
>>
>>HTH & GF
>
> Since atheism is simply a lack of belief
So, you admit you lack a fundamental property of the human brain. No
doubt you are also proud to announce that you descended from apes
swinging in trees.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
> Attila < wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 14:03:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
>>>
>>>> Where's Duke's proof? In a bottle of wine, judging from his random
>>>> ramblings.
>>>
>>>Since atheism in all its forms is provably incoherent and inconsistent,
>>>the burden lies with the atheist to prove that proceeding from a
>>>position of atheism is tenable.
>>>
>>>HTH & GF
>>
>> Since atheism is simply a lack of belief
>
>So, you admit you lack a fundamental property of the human brain.
Irrationality? No, he has his religion. It's just not based upon
your invisible sky pixies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
What are my "invisible sky pixies"?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:09:50 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <591fc5p7u64t88oec...@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Budikka
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Oct 2, 2:19�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:12:14 -0400, "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >"duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>> >news:qet9c59c625grh57v...@4ax.com...
> >>> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:16:03 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:11:33 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:51:14 -0700, gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:43:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >>>>>>And there's only one, and he's ALL-MIGHTY to boot.
> >>>
> >>> >>>>>Nah -- you're wrong. �I've discussed this with folks who follow other
> >>> >>>>>superstitions, and their belief set is as valid as yours.
> >>>
> >>> >>>>But their's never so much as raised one wooden finger.
> >>>
> >>> >>>None of them have, though they all make unsubstantiated claims.
> >>>
> >>> >> Our God is a living God.
> >>>
> >>> >Hey, sure, it is your fantasy after all!
> >>>
> >>> Except that I talk to him everyday. �His answers are truly astounding.
> >>
> >>Go ahead and provide your proof that some god answers your prayers.
> >>Objective, verifiable, reproducible proof. Go ahead. We're waiting.
> >>Otherwise it's just another of your self-deluded LIES, isn't it?
> >
> >Sorry, dud, but God reveals himself to those that want to hear from
him. I do
> >and you don't.
>
> It appears strong drink may help. ...
** Quaffing distilled spirits leads to communication from the Holy Spirit?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
AMEN!!!
�R.L.Measures
<<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> That's why the Spirit is so Holy. As in Sanctified Scotch or
> Revelation Rum. Both help you commune with the gods, and worship at
> the White Throne upon occasion (spelled "over indulgence").
� chortle
Kadaitcha Man
> How proud you must be.
<STALK>
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> Sure, if by "fucking stupid" you mean "reject unsupported assertions of
> deity."
<aside>
Aw! How thweet. I got me a new stalker.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept the
> assertion.
That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
>
> Religion does tha<BITCHSLAP>
There are no second prizes.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> I have time. Atheism is lack of belief in deities, usually based on the
> complete lack of evidence of their existence.
>
> Of course, you know that; you just have an insatiable desire to spout
> your idiocy.
>
>> >> Of course, it is utterly impossible to establish atheism as tenable
>> >> on the grounds that atheism is provably illogical, therefore atheism
>> >> is both inconsistent and incoherent. And neither any amount of
>> >> bleating by you nor the misapplication of any tortured, twisty-turny
>> >> atheistic logik will ever fix it.
>>
>> > The atheism is by itself logical, and tenable. And it existed in
>> > children from birth, animals and all life forms.
>>
>> Proof, please.
>>
>> I await the lack of it.
>
> Hold your breath.
Stalk much?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> A lame excuse for never having any.
Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the most
significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by [= strictly implied by] a positive
property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent [=possibly
exemplified].
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
>>>>Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
>>>
>>> Religion does tha<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>>There are no second prizes.
>
> There is no contest.
You were saying? Tear down the proof. Go on, you know want to run and
hide.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
> Attila < wrote:
>>>> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept the
>>>> assertion.
>>>
>>>That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>
>> A lame excuse for never having any.
>
>Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the most
>significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
This isn't from Godel. He was smarter than you.
>Definition 1: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
>only those properties which are positive.
What are "positivie" properties?
>Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
>necessarily iff A entails B
>
>Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
>exemplified.
>
>Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Unjustified. Since you don't define "property" then we don't even
know if "positive" or "negative" even apply. There are many things
which can be both positive AND negative depending upon the context.
>Axiom 2: Any property entailed by [= strictly implied by] a positive
>property is positive.
>
>Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Do you even realize what Godels's incompleteness theorem proved and
how it applies to your argument?
>>>> Religion does tha<BITCHSLAP>
>>>
>>>There are no second prizes.
>>
>> There is no contest.
>
>You were saying? Tear down the proof.
Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
> I don't need to choke on anything. While logic is a useful mental tool
> (and mental exercise) it must be benchmarked against reality from time
> to time to be of much use. I see no such benchmarks here.
>
> While this may or may not indicate the properties of a god it has
> absolutely nothing to do with proving such a god actually exists.
Note how you moved the goalposts? No? Hardly surprising. The challenge
was "atheism is provably illogical", not "proving such a god actually
exists".
As you can see, atheism made you really fucking stupid.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>> Attila < wrote:
>
>>>>> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept
>>>>> the assertion.
>>>>
>>>>That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>>
>>> A lame excuse for never having any.
>>
>>Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the most
>>significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
>
> This isn't from Godel.
Really now? And your basis for that claim is?
Nevertheless, AtheistWeb disagrees with you, as does the Stanford library
and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as does Baylor U, Oxford
Journals, freethoughtpedia, and the University of Amsterdam, just to name
a few.
> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
Your brain is missing.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>> Attila < wrote:
>>>>>> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept
>>>>>> the assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>>>
>>>> A lame excuse for never having any.
>>>
>>>Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the most
>>>significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
>>
>> This isn't from Godel.
>
>Really now? And your basis for that claim is?
Godel wasn't stupid enough to try and prove the existence of God.
>Nevertheless, AtheistWeb disagrees with you,
Appeal to Authority fallcy.
> as does the Stanford library
>and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as does Baylor U, Oxford
You're a liar.
>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>
>Your brain is missing.
Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
against the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>>> Attila < wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept
>>>>>>> the assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lame excuse for never having any.
>>>>
>>>>Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the
>>>>most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
>>>
>>> This isn't from Godel.
>>
>>Really now? And your basis for that claim is?
>
> Godel wasn't stupid enough to try and prove the existence of God.
>
>>Nevertheless, AtheistWeb disagrees with you,
>
> Appeal to Authority fallcy.
Wrong. It was merely a forewarning to you that a cite would be
forthcoming.
>> as does the Stanford library
>>and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as does Baylor U, Oxford
>
> You're a liar.
Ya reckon?
http://seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2006/entries/ontological-arguments/#6
>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>
>>Your brain is missing.
>
> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
> against the truth.
What truth would that be? Your outright denial that Gödel's ontological
proof is Gödel's ontological proof, perhaps?
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> Not so stupid as to fail to recognize pure male grazing animal excrement
> when I read it.
<aside>
Atheism made him so fucking stupid he can't understand the logic.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>>>> Attila < wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> So what? I have seen no proof of any such thing and do not accept
>>>>>>>> the assertion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's ok. You wouldn't comprehend it even if I showed you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lame excuse for never having any.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well then, let's see how you go. Here, choke on the work one of the
>>>>>most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's ontological proof:
>>>>
>>>> This isn't from Godel.
>>>
>>>Really now? And your basis for that claim is?
>>
>> Godel wasn't stupid enough to try and prove the existence of God.
>>
>>>Nevertheless, AtheistWeb disagrees with you,
>>
>> Appeal to Authority fallcy.
>
>Wrong.
Not wrong. You didn't actually cite ANYBODY agreeing with you.
>>> as does the Stanford library
>>>and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as does Baylor U, Oxford
>>
>> You're a liar.
>
>Ya reckon?
Yep.
>http://seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2006/entries/ontological-arguments/#6
That isn't from any of the sources you cite.
>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>
>>>Your brain is missing.
>>
>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
>> against the truth.
>
>What truth would that be?
Your "proof" is crap.
>What truth would that be? Your outright denial that Gödel's ontological
>proof
That's a LIE, you stupid asshole. It's no such thing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
Good God! You are thicker than pig shit.
seop.leeds.ac.uk is the UK mirror of the Stanford Encyclopedia, hosted at
Leeds U. You will find the original at plato.stanford.edu. Of course, had
you actually checked the link, you would have seen, "Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy" on it.
Atheism made you dumber than a freaking igneous rock.
>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>
>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
>>> against the truth.
>>
>>What truth would that be?
>
> Your "proof" is crap.
It's Gödel's ontological proof.
>>What truth would that be? Your outright denial that Gödel's ontological
>>proof
>
> That's a LIE, you stupid asshole. It's no such thing.
Oh hum.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> I understand logic
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> well enough to know it proves nothing without a
> benchmark to reality, a point you refuse to acknowledge.
>
> Otherwise it is nothing more than a mental exercise.
Not one self-respecting logician would ever acknowledge your idiotic
point, you stupid atheist fucktard cunt.
"Ontological arguments are arguments... from premises which are supposed
to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g.,
from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments
from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises..."
Source: http://seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2006/entries/ontological-
arguments/#6
> I understand logic
God, that's the funny.
You stupid brainless atheist fuck. You just proved that you don't even
know what logic is.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:06:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> in alt.abortion with message-id <36l568....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:23:56 -0400, Attila < wrote:
>>
>>> I understand logic
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>>> well enough to know it proves nothing without a benchmark to reality,
>>> a point you refuse to acknowledge.
>>>
>>> Otherwise it is nothing more than a mental exercise.
>>
>>Not one self-respecting logician would ever acknowledge your idiotic
>>point, you stupid atheist fucktard cunt.
>>
>>"Ontological arguments are arguments... from premises which are supposed
>>to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g.,
>>from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments
>>from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises..."
>
> And therefore are useless beyond mental exercises.
Real meaning: He has no clue about either the role of logic or the
importance of philosophy therefore they are useless to him.
Atheism makes you fucking stupid.
>>Source: http://seop.leeds.ac.uk/archives/spr2006/entries/ontological-
Kadaitcha Man
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:18:07 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
> in alt.abortion with message-id <36lnf1....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:16:13 -0400, Attila < wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 23:06:14 +0000 (UTC), Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email>
>>> in alt.abortion with message-id <36l568....@news.alt.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:23:56 -0400, Attila < wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I understand logic
>>>>
>>>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>>
>>>>> well enough to know it proves nothing without a benchmark to
>>>>> reality, a point you refuse to acknowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise it is nothing more than a mental exercise.
>>>>
>>>>Not one self-respecting logician would ever acknowledge your idiotic
>>>>point, you stupid atheist fucktard cunt.
>>>>
>>>>"Ontological arguments are arguments... from premises which are
>>>>supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the
>>>>world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments
>>>>are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary
>>>>premises..."
>>>
>>> And therefore are useless beyond mental exercises.
>>
>>Real meaning: He has no clue about either the role of logic or the
>>importance of philosophy therefore they are useless to him.
>
> I understand
Your own words say otherwise.
Bye, now.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
And you're a cowardly moron.
>Atheism made you dumber than a freaking igneous rock.
Arrogance has corrupted you and made you evil.
>>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>>
>>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
>>>> against the truth.
>>>
>>>What truth would that be?
>>
>> Your "proof" is crap.
>
>It's Gödel's ontological proof.
You're lying outright. It's not a proof. It's not even described as
a proof. It's an argument and not a very good one at that.
>>>What truth would that be? Your outright denial that Gödel's ontological
>>>proof
>>
>> That's a LIE, you stupid asshole. It's no such thing.
>
>Oh hum.
And there's a fine example of your "morality". You lie shamelessly
and, when challenged, you simply dismiss your lie as being unimportant.
Your cult has corrupted you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
I've been called worse by better.
>>Atheism made you dumber than a freaking igneous rock.
>
> Arrogance has corrupted you and made you evil.
Yes, so?
>>>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
>>>>> against the truth.
>>>>
>>>>What truth would that be?
>>>
>>> Your "proof" is crap.
>>
>>It's Gödel's ontological proof.
>
> You're lying outright. It's not a proof. It's not even described as a
> proof. It's an argument and not a very good one at that.
Real meaning: MOO! BAA! GRUNT! COCK-A-DOODLE-DO! NEIGH! EE-ORE! EE-ORE!
Results 1 - 100 of about 14,000 for "Gödel's ontological proof". (0.49
seconds)
>>>>What truth would that be? Your outright denial that Gödel's
>>>>ontological proof
>>>
>>> That's a LIE, you stupid asshole. It's no such thing.
>>
>>Oh hum.
>
> And there's a fine example of your "morality". You lie shamelessly and,
> when challenged, you simply dismiss your lie as being unimportant.
>
> Your cult has corrupted you.
What cult would that be?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:06:07 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up hard
>>>>>> against the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>What truth would that be?
>>>>
>>>> Your "proof" is crap.
>>>
>>>It's Gödel's ontological proof.
>>
>> You're lying outright. It's not a proof. It's not even described as a
>> proof. It's an argument and not a very good one at that.
>
>Real meaning: MOO! BAA! GRUNT! COCK-A-DOODLE-DO! NEIGH! EE-ORE! EE-ORE!
And there's the "response" of the religious moron too corrupted by
his cult to even be able to think.
>Results 1 - 100 of about 14,000 for "Gödel's ontological proof". (0.49
>seconds)
"1 - 10 of about 1,320,000 for alien abduction. (0.45 seconds)"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kadaitcha Man
You're a fucking whackjob.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:25:53 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:06:07 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up
>>>>>>>> hard against the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What truth would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "proof" is crap.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's Gödel's ontological proof.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying outright. It's not a proof. It's not even described as
>>>> a proof. It's an argument and not a very good one at that.
>>>
>>>Real meaning: MOO! BAA! GRUNT! COCK-A-DOODLE-DO! NEIGH! EE-ORE! EE-ORE!
>>
>> And there's the "response" of the religious moron too corrupted by his
>> cult to even be able to think.
>>
>>>Results 1 - 100 of about 14,000 for "Gödel's ontological proof". (0.49
>>>seconds)
>>
>> "1 - 10 of about 1,320,000 for alien abduction. (0.45 seconds)"
>
>You're a fucking whackjob.
Run along, idiot. Cling to your cult.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:25:53 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
>>>>>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:06:07 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Your definitions are missing and your axioms are nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your brain is missing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Run away, bigot. It what you assholes do whenever you come up
>>>>>>>> hard against the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What truth would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "proof" is crap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're lying outright. It's not a proof. It's not even described as
>>>> a proof. It's an argument and not a very good one at that.
>>>
>>>Real meaning: MOO! BAA! GRUNT! COCK-A-DOODLE-DO! NEIGH! EE-ORE! EE-ORE!
>>
>> And there's the "response" of the religious moron too corrupted by his
>> cult to even be able to think.
>>
>>>seconds)
>>
>> "1 - 10 of about 1,320,000 for alien abduction. (0.45 seconds)"
>
> You're a fucking whackjob.
Could you refrain from your soliloquies?
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Texas 1 (SO, October 10)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 16 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
Kadaitcha Man
Fuck you. Up the arse. With a broken piss bottle. One peed in by an AIDS
patient. Then learn how to use a krillfile.
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)
Kadaitcha Man
IKYABWAI.
> Cling to your cult.
What cult would that be, whacko?
--
Ubuntu 9.04 (2.6.28-15)