You, yes *you*, have the opportunity to show a god exists...

[Atheist ------------------------------]

> How can we verify a god exists?

Follow these guidelines:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Guidelines to verify any "god exists" claim:

verify - to determine the truth using the only reliable method for
determining truth, the Scientific Method.

We do not accept "personal revelation" (discredited as having no way to verify).
We do not accept writings having the unverifiable quality of fiction or fairy tales.
We do not accept writings shown to have been forged or manipulated to push a "belief".
We do not accept "faith", which can be used to either prove or disprove anything.

We adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. "god exists" is such a claim; "god exists" has never, in 200,000
years of human existence, been proven for any of the thousands of gods claimed.

Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.

[aaa]

On 07/12/2018 11:27 PM, Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>
>> How can we verify a god exists?
>
> Follow these guidelines:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Universal Guidelines to verify any "god exists" claim:
>
> verify - to determine the truth using the only reliable method for
> determining truth, the Scientific Method.

God's existence is a philosophical question. Science has nothing to say
about it. The scientific method is meaningless and pointless on this
issue. Science does not study ghost. It can't.

>
> We do not accept "personal revelation" (discredited as having no way to
> verify).
> We do not accept writings having the unverifiable quality of fiction or
> fairy tales.
> We do not accept writings shown to have been forged or manipulated to
> push a "belief".
> We do not accept "faith", which can be used to either prove or disprove
> anything.
>
> We adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence. "god exists" is such a claim; "god exists" has never, in 200,000
> years of human existence, been proven for any of the thousands of gods
> claimed.
>
> Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god
> exists"?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


--

God's spiritual evidence:

Truth, love, wisdom, compassion, knowledge, consciousness, intelligence,
happiness, faith, courage, justice, peace, freedom, and life itself.

[MattB]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:27:56 -0700, Atheist
------------------------------ <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> How can we verify a god exists?
>
>Follow these guidelines:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Universal Guidelines to verify any "god exists" claim:
>
>verify - to determine the truth using the only reliable method for
> determining truth, the Scientific Method.
>
>We do not accept "personal revelation" (discredited as having no way to verify).
>We do not accept writings having the unverifiable quality of fiction or fairy tales.
>We do not accept writings shown to have been forged or manipulated to push a "belief".
>We do not accept "faith", which can be used to either prove or disprove anything.
>
>We adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence. "god exists" is such a claim; "god exists" has never, in 200,000
>years of human existence, been proven for any of the thousands of gods claimed.
>
>Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

They should have applied that standard to string theory and placed all
the money they wasted to researching something useful.

[duke]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:27:56 -0700, Atheist ------------------------------
<a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> How can we verify a god exists?
>
>Follow these guidelines:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Universal Guidelines to verify any "god exists" claim:
>
>verify - to determine the truth using the only reliable method for
> determining truth, the Scientific Method.
>
>We do not accept "personal revelation" (discredited as having no way to verify).
>We do not accept writings having the unverifiable quality of fiction or fairy tales.
>We do not accept writings shown to have been forged or manipulated to push a "belief".
>We do not accept "faith", which can be used to either prove or disprove anything.
>
>We adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
>evidence. "god exists" is such a claim; "god exists" has never, in 200,000
>years of human existence, been proven for any of the thousands of gods claimed.
>
>Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

WE do not care if you get it or not if you don't care.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

[Atheist ------------------------------]

Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>
>> How can we verify a god exists?
>
>
> Follow these guidelines:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Universal Guidelines to verify any "god exists" claim:
>
> verify - to determine the truth using the only reliable method for
> determining truth, the Scientific Method.
>
> We do not accept "personal revelation" (discredited as having no way to
> verify).
> We do not accept writings having the unverifiable quality of fiction or
> fairy tales.
> We do not accept writings shown to have been forged or manipulated to
> push a "belief".
> We do not accept "faith", which can be used to either prove or disprove
> anything.
>
> We adhere to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence. "god exists" is such a claim; "god exists" has never, in 200,000
> years of human existence, been proven for any of the thousands of gods
> claimed.
>
> Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god
> exists"?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems our god-believers don't have even one tiny smidgen of verifiable evidence.

Only delusions of a god.

[Andrew]

"Atheist" wrote in message news:tISdnfcOoeifgdXG...@supernews.com...

> we remain open minded;
> can anyone give verifiable
> evidence of "a god exists"?

~~~ DNA ~~

DNA is verily verifiable
evidence that we have a
most awesome Creator.

---> The Living God.






Glory to Him!

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Andrew" wrote in message news:gO92D.219935$mD.7...@fx31.iad...

> "Atheist" wrote in message
> news:tISdnfcOoeifgdXG...@supernews.com...

> > we remain open minded;
> > can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?

> ~~~ DNA ~~
> DNA is verily verifiable evidence that we have a most awesome Creator.

Nope. No evidence of any gods there.

[duke]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 07:51:42 -0700, Atheist ------------------------------
<a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Atheist ------------------------------ wrote:
>>
>>> How can we verify a god exists?

>It seems our god-believers don't have even one tiny smidgen of verifiable evidence.
>Only delusions of a god.

Reveal the facts behind your delusion that there is no God.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:c2akkdljq9p7g5apq...@4ax.com...

> Reveal the facts behind your delusion that there is no God.

You're the one making an extraordinary claim; the burden of proof is yours.

[duke]

Nope, not me. He's the one that said there is no God. I want his evidence.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:1odmkd9skf1s8l8jv...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:03:28 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >You're the one making an extraordinary claim; the burden of proof is
> >yours.

> Nope, not me. He's the one that said there is no God. I want his
> evidence.

No; you're the one claiming a supernatural being ... you prove she exists.

[duke]

Sorry. I told him I want his evidence to support his statement that "there is
no God".

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:v422lddsfrbk8tngv...@4ax.com...

> Sorry. I told him I want his evidence to support his statement that
> "there is no God".

If there are gods where can I meet one?

[Alex W.]

You are too late.

Prince Philip has withdrawn from all public engagements.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Alex W." wrote in message news:frd06a...@mid.individual.net...

Then I have been in the presence of a god ... and there I was, wasting my
time, waving at his wife.

[PatB]

>SAM IS THE NEW HOH!!!!

Be atmy place tomorrow at 1:00 PM.
We've gonna hang out all afternoon.
BYOB.

[duke]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:26:48 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

For some, it's alcohol, sex, food, gambling, etc, etc, etc.

For me, it's almighty God.

Take your pick.

[Gronk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndcBLt-2vaQ

[MattB]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 23:21:09 -0600, Gronk <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndcBLt-2vaQ
>


I like the second video.

[duke]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:26:48 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

He's there with you now.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:6io6ld5e0ube57ibg...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 18:26:48 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >If there are gods where can I meet one?

> He's there with you now.

Nope ... I'm alone ... tho spouse and cat are in the next room.

[Street]

Did you look behind the chair?

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Street" wrote in message
news:1530387587553916704.845...@news.easynews.com...

> "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
> > "duke" wrote in message
> > news:6io6ld5e0ube57ibg...@4ax.com...

> >> He's there with you now.
> >
> > Nope ... I'm alone ... tho spouse and cat are in the next room.

> Did you look behind the chair?

Yes, of course I looked behind the chair.

[PolicySpy]

>
> Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?
>

Gravity is god.

Existence is god.

The book of Genesis is an explanation of existence by a being. An explanation of nature by a being is a science.

[duke]

He's always there with you and your wife. He's keeping a running account of
your sins to be judged on.

[duke]

Not funny, fairy boy.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:ust9lddh9mppsa9du...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 14:45:07 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> > Nope ... I'm alone ... tho spouse and cat are in the next room.

> He's always there with you and your wife. He's keeping a running account
> of your sins to be judged on.

Prove it.


Oh, and my sins pale in comparison to the child rapists and their
collaborators. Still supporting the pedo-priests, Duke?

[duke]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:40:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:ust9lddh9mppsa9du...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 14:45:07 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> > Nope ... I'm alone ... tho spouse and cat are in the next room.
>
>> He's always there with you and your wife. He's keeping a running account
>> of your sins to be judged on.
>
>Prove it.

God knows everything. But more importantly, he knows how you reject him.

>Oh, and my sins pale in comparison to the child rapists and their
>collaborators. Still supporting the pedo-priests, Duke?

I never did.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:4jlcld53oc91qn2cs...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:40:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >Prove it.

> God knows everything. But more importantly, he knows how you reject him.

Failure to provide evidence of the existence of any gods noted.

[Just Wondering]

On 7/23/2018 6:02 PM, M.I.Wakefield wrote:
> "duke"  wrote:

>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 "M.I.Wakefield" wrote:
>
>> >Prove it.
>
>> God knows everything.   But more importantly, he knows how you reject
>> him.
>
> Failure to provide evidence of the existence of any gods noted.

(a) The crosspost to alt.guns is way off topic.
(b) The reason this debate even exists is that theists
cannot prove the existence of Deity, and that athiests
cannot prove the nonexistence of Deity. You already know
this, you just want to pick a fight.

[PatB]

Isn't that what life is all about? ;)

[duke]

Failure to remotely consider what the rest of us understand without doubt is
routine for you pagans.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:hhoeldtdf95cpc7ei...@4ax.com...

> Failure to remotely consider what the rest of us understand without doubt
> is routine for you pagans.

You're the one that claimed that a god exists, duke: Prove it.

Surely your church didn't rape all those children for nothing?

[duke]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:38:45 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:hhoeldtdf95cpc7ei...@4ax.com...
>
>> Failure to remotely consider what the rest of us understand without doubt
>> is routine for you pagans.
>
>You're the one that claimed that a god exists, duke: Prove it.

Done.

>Surely your church didn't rape all those children for nothing?

They didn't virtually at all.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:gmohldhf492ob2i81...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:38:45 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >You're the one that claimed that a god exists, duke: Prove it.

> Done.

Just repeating your failed claim doesn't make it true. Where's your
evidence?

> >Surely your church didn't rape all those children for nothing?

> They didn't virtually at all.

Uh-huh. And what was your omnipresent god doing while his priests raped
children? Sitting in the corner, stroking one out?

[PolicySpy]

>
> Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?

Gravity is god.

Existence is god.

The Book of Genesis is an explanation of existence by a being. An explanation of nature by a being is a science. In this case the science is theology.

Also, there is no concept in physical science of a non-existence. But the Book of Genesis suggests a previous non-existence. So Genesis sees God and nature as two different existences.


Gravity is god ?

Well, doesn't gravity magically astound every day ?

Here is an article that contains a graphic of gravity:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-25/one-woman-s-math-could-help-nasa-put-people-on-mars
.

[PolicySpy]

>
> Yet we remain open minded; can anyone give verifiable evidence of "a god exists"?


Gravity is god.

Existence is god.

The Book of Genesis is an explanation of existence by a being. An explanation of nature by a being is a science. In this case the science is theology.

Also, there is no concept in physical science of a non-existence. But the Book of Genesis suggests a previous non-existence. So Genesis sees God and nature as two different existences.

Well, in Genesis there is concept of a time of a non-existence of nature but no concept of a time of a non-existence of God.

In physical science there is a concept of a time of a non-existence of the universe but no concept of a time of a non-existence of matter.

[duke]

I suspect that was you.

[duke]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:25:01 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:38:45 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke" wrote in message news:hhoeldtdf95cpc7ei...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Failure to remotely consider what the rest of us understand without doubt
>> >> is routine for you pagans.
>> >
>> >You're the one that claimed that a god exists, duke: Prove it.

>> Done.

>Fail.

>You have done a yeoman's job of proselytizing for
>atheism, though.

Nope, you still don't know what the p-word means.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:8e3kld5sqgt1fbjc8...@4ax.com...

> Nope, you still don't know what the p-word means.

Priest or pedophile? Oh, but since you're catholic, the answer is both.

[duke]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:15:59 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:8e3kld5sqgt1fbjc8...@4ax.com...
>
>> Nope, you still don't know what the p-word means.
>
>Priest or pedophile?

Wrong on both.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:88mmld9ip60r9puig...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:15:59 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >"duke" wrote in message
> >news:8e3kld5sqgt1fbjc8...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Nope, you still don't know what the p-word means.
> >
> >Priest or pedophile?

> Wrong on both.

The p-word = Pennsylvania, pedophile, and priest.

The grand jury report about Catholic priest abuse in Pennsylvania shows the
church is a criminal syndicate

The Catholic church hierarchy systematically covered up the abuse of at
least 1,000 kids by 300 priests over 70 years.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/grand-jury-report-about-catholic-priest-abuse-pennsylvania-shows-church-ncna900906


C'mon duke ... I need a break from Trump ... let's see your defense of the
gang of child fuckers you call the Catholic Church.

[duke]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 21:19:55 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:88mmld9ip60r9puig...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:15:59 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >news:8e3kld5sqgt1fbjc8...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Nope, you still don't know what the p-word means.
>> >
>> >Priest or pedophile?
>
>> Wrong on both.
>
>The p-word = Pennsylvania, pedophile, and priest.

Also peckerhead for WIW

>The grand jury report about Catholic priest abuse in Pennsylvania shows the
>church is a criminal syndicate

Last century, early on, was not a good one.

>The Catholic church hierarchy systematically covered up the abuse of at
>least 1,000 kids by 300 priests over 70 years.

But that goes back to the period starting about 1920. The house has been
cleaned already.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:hjfond5191pn9h8pp...@4ax.com...

> But that goes back to the period starting about 1920. The house has been
> cleaned already.

No, it hasn't. Cardinal Wuerl's name came up more than 200 times in the
Grand Jury report ... he was Bishop of Pittsburgh until 2006.

Time to tear down the whole rotten edifice.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:58:56 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

And the priests whose names were redacted, are still around - whether
or not they are still priests.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:58:56 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:hjfond5191pn9h8pp...@4ax.com...
>
>> But that goes back to the period starting about 1920. The house has been
>> cleaned already.
>
>No, it hasn't. Cardinal Wuerl's name came up more than 200 times in the
>Grand Jury report ... he was Bishop of Pittsburgh until 2006.

But the pedo priest problem occurred long before he was Bishop.

[duke]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:17:37 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net>
wrote:

Most are dead, for sure.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:99grndlraa2mhh8ra...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:58:56 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >No, it hasn't. Cardinal Wuerl's name came up more than 200 times in the
> >Grand Jury report ... he was Bishop of Pittsburgh until 2006.

> But the pedo priest problem occurred long before he was Bishop.

And continued under him. And continues today.

You can't start to solve the problem until you admit that there's a problem.

And you haven't.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:2cgrnd1d1gcfivof6...@4ax.com...

>On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:17:37 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
><c....@fairpoint.net>
> wrote:

> >And the priests whose names were redacted, are still around - whether or
> >not they are still priests.

> Most are dead, for sure.

Not. Enough.

And that disgusting fuck from the Catholic League ...

https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/with-friends-like-bill-donohue

[Atheist ------------------------------]

The Freedom From Religion Fondation (ffrf.org) puts out a monthly
newspaper and every issue has a two page spread listing all the priests,
pastors, rabbis, etc who have been charged with crimes.



--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Atheist: anyone who says "I don't buy the claim 'a god exists'". Period.
Atheism: no such thing (no texts,dogmas,worldview,rules,popes,leaders).
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:53:05 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:2cgrnd1d1gcfivof6...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:17:37 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
>><c....@fairpoint.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >And the priests whose names were redacted, are still around - whether or
>> >not they are still priests.
>
>> Most are dead, for sure.
>Not. Enough.

If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?

>And that disgusting fuck from the Catholic League ...

>https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/with-friends-like-bill-donohue

He's much, much superior to you.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:doctndhsn0j24rbhh...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:53:05 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >"duke" wrote in message
> >news:2cgrnd1d1gcfivof6...@4ax.com...

> >> Most are dead, for sure.

>Not. Enough.

> If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?

Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?

> >And that disgusting fuck from the Catholic League ...

> >https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/with-friends-like-bill-donohue

> He's much, much superior to you.

Duke: still pedo-priest friendly.

[PatB]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>

wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:doctndhsn0j24rbhh...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:53:05 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >news:2cgrnd1d1gcfivof6...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> Most are dead, for sure.
>
>>Not. Enough.
>
>> If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?
>
>Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?

Do you feel this strongly about the 53 people who were shot and
murdered in Chicago last weekend?

[Tommy]

PatB <PBARK...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:l0mtnddubmno0a40o...@4ax.com:

Liberals don't like to discuss the truth.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:37:54 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:99grndlraa2mhh8ra...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:58:56 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >No, it hasn't. Cardinal Wuerl's name came up more than 200 times in the
>> >Grand Jury report ... he was Bishop of Pittsburgh until 2006.
>
>> But the pedo priest problem occurred long before he was Bishop.
>
>And continued under him. And continues today.

Sorry, dumbass. You are highly unreliable on this issue. The US pedopriest
problem peaked in the 1970's, dropped precipitously in the early 80's and just
about disappeared in th 1990's. As far as I know, there has been no new cases
since before 2002. And new revelations are old, old, old cases.

The Pennsylvania issue goes all the way back go the 1920's as a starting point.

>You can't start to solve the problem until you admit that there's a problem.

Yep, and your problem is totally out of date. I am prepared to accept your
apologies for your unmitigated ingnorance on this issue.

>And you haven't.

And we have.

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:14:24 -0700, Atheist ------------------------------
<a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>M.I.Wakefield wrote:
>
>> "duke" wrote in message news:99grndlraa2mhh8ra...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:58:56 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >No, it hasn't. Cardinal Wuerl's name came up more than 200 times in
>>> the >Grand Jury report ... he was Bishop of Pittsburgh until 2006.
>>
>>
>>> But the pedo priest problem occurred long before he was Bishop.
>>
>>
>> And continued under him. And continues today.
>>
>> You can't start to solve the problem until you admit that there's a
>> problem.
>>
>> And you haven't.
>
>The Freedom From Religion Fondation (ffrf.org) puts out a monthly
>newspaper and every issue has a two page spread listing all the priests,
>pastors, rabbis, etc who have been charged with crimes.

But not convicted.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"PatB" wrote in message news:l0mtnddubmno0a40o...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >"duke" wrote in message
> >news:doctndhsn0j24rbhh...@4ax.com...

> >> If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?

> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?

> Do you feel this strongly about the 53 people who were shot and murdered
> in Chicago last weekend?

You're saying the Catholic Church aided and abetted in that as well?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:57:03 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

>"PatB" wrote in message news:l0mtnddubmno0a40o...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >news:doctndhsn0j24rbhh...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?
>
>> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>
>> Do you feel this strongly about the 53 people who were shot and murdered
>> in Chicago last weekend?

By individuals, who will hopefully be caught and serve time for it -
not members of a corrupt organisation that covered it up and
transferred them to betray the trust of children and their parents in
new parishes by doing it again and again..

>You're saying the Catholic Church aided and abetted in that as well?

Have you _ever_ seen any honesty from the religious loonies who try to
defend the RCC's appalling behaviour?

[PatB]

uh oh........
lee is showing his true colors......
finally.

[Michael Christ]

Sigh. Yes, its obvious.

The Catholic club was always dirty and always will be.





Michael Christ

[duke]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:doctndhsn0j24rbhh...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:53:05 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"duke" wrote in message
>> >news:2cgrnd1d1gcfivof6...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> Most are dead, for sure.
>
>>Not. Enough.
>
>> If they're gone form the priesthood, why do you wish death on them?
>
>Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?

It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.

>> >And that disgusting fuck from the Catholic League ...
>> >https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/with-friends-like-bill-donohue
>> He's much, much superior to you.
>Duke: still pedo-priest friendly.

Priests are more honest than you.

[duke]

When are you going to be baptized.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?

> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.

Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
have raped precisely zero children.

> >Duke: still pedo-priest friendly.

> Priests are more honest than you.

Except for the whole child-sex abuse thing. But that's a big one.

[PatB]

"M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>have raped precisely zero children.

Hey, that is larry's story also.
Except he went to prison.

[duke]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>
>> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>
>Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>have raped precisely zero children.

The average priest has raped ZERO children.

>> >Duke: still pedo-priest friendly.
>> Priests are more honest than you.
>Except for the whole child-sex abuse thing. But that's a big one.

Far, far too few.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:go43odlrqb0pbt9dr...@4ax.com...

> The average priest has raped ZERO children.

Add up all the children raped by priests, and divide by the number of
priests.

Oops ... a non-zero number.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"Peter Pan" wrote in message
news:7n34odhl2qjsa9459...@4ax.com...

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

> > The average priest has raped ZERO children.

> You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?
>
> Are you are lying on the ng again, or are you really that arithmetically
> challenged, Mr. I-have-a-BSME?

For Pope Francis, sex abuse by priests is a "grave scandal".

For duke, it's fake news.

[PatB]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:27:45 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>> >
>> >> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>> >
>> >Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>> >have raped precisely zero children.
>>
>> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>

>You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?

Admit what?
Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.
Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward 40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more
mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.

You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
What is it?

Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
and they found out that there aren't any.
Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
never be made again.
Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

[PatB]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 23:58:57 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Both can be very true.
It was a scandal, a crisis, a serious problem.
And....
Fake news seems to enjoy spreading the shit.

[Street]

Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>>>
>>>> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>>>
>>> Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>>> have raped precisely zero children.
>>
>> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>

> You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?
>

Obviously.

> Are you are lying on the ng again, or are you really that
> arithmetically challenged, Mr. I-have-a-BSME?

LOL.

>
>>>>> Duke: still pedo-priest friendly.
>>>> Priests are more honest than you.
>>> Except for the whole child-sex abuse thing. But that's a big one.
>>
>> Far, far too few.
>

> So you are demanding that more pedo priests abuse more
> children, AGAIN?

What an idiot. Yep, that's clearly what he said.

>
> "There are far too few priests engaged in something
> disgusting like pedophilia."
> -- Earl "Whooshie" Weber

I remember when he said that too. If he denies it, I'll post the link.

[Michael Christ]

Duke is a cult of one. Patrick Barker is also a cult of one.

Between them they make a number 2. :-).





Michael Christ

[duke]

Ok, how many of each should I use. Wow, this place is full of dumbass stupid
people who will lie about anything.

[duke]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:27:45 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

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

>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>> >
>> >> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>> >
>> >Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>> >have raped precisely zero children.
>>
>> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>

>You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?

You didn't start with "So", but your stupidity remains supreme.

[duke]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 23:58:57 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

Were you the one that suggested hundreds of thousands recently?

[duke]

Good name for MIW.

[duke]

According to the NY study report, about 80 priests were shown to have done the
dastardly deed and found guilty..

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:qhf5odtl56hf302le...@4ax.com...

> Ok, how many of each should I use. Wow, this place is full of dumbass
> stupid people who will lie about anything.

And now duke says that allegations of child abuse by priests are lies.

duke is a sad, sad, man.

[PatB]

>So you think that's "far, far too few"?
>
>What would you prefer, that there are teh thousand
>priests convicted of pedophilia? A hundred thousand?

People want you to accept the fact that priests are humans and humans
sin. The pool of priests who abuse children is a much smaller pool
than the average human pool of anything else. How many pedo's are in
your own family?

[PatB]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:39:12 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:27:45 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
>>
>> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>> >> >have raped precisely zero children.
>> >>
>> >> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>> >
>> >You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?
>>
>> You didn't start with "So", but your stupidity remains supreme.
>

>Ok, so Earl Weber denies that any RC priest ever raped a
>child.

LIAR.

[PatB]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:23:55 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Some are liars.
They wanted to get a piece of the pie.

[Street]

> So you think that's "far, far too few"?
>
> What would you prefer, that there are teh thousand
> priests convicted of pedophilia? A hundred thousand?

He obviously wants the number to be much higher than the "far, far too few"
it is now.
.

[duke]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:23:55 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

Where are the bloody bottoms. Where are the parents? Where is the evidence.
Where are the witnesses.

By and large, admission of guilt brings out the truth by priests for what they
did.

>duke is a sad, sad, man.

I know the truth.

[duke]

>So you think that's "far, far too few"?

Out of 40-50 thousand???

>What would you prefer, that there are teh thousand
>priests convicted of pedophilia? A hundred thousand?

What do you want. Hang the whole bunch because of what 80 did over a 30-40 year
period?

[duke]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:39:12 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:27:45 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
>>
>> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>> >> >have raped precisely zero children.
>> >>
>> >> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>> >
>> >You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?
>>
>> You didn't start with "So", but your stupidity remains supreme.
>

>Ok, so Earl Weber denies that any RC priest ever raped a
>child.

Ah, another "so" comment. Miserably inaccurate as usual.

According to the study, 73% of the guilty did not involve rape or even attempted
rape.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:24r8od12nm0nck406...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:23:55 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
> wrote:

> >And now duke says that allegations of child abuse by priests are lies.

> Where are the bloody bottoms. Where are the parents? Where is the
> evidence. Where are the witnesses.

Am I alone in thinking that duke reads reports of sex abuse by priests with
a bottle of lube and a box of tissues at the ready?

[MattB]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:34:59 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Think Duke and Patrick do that together.

[%]

how often do you have sexual fantasies about male on male

[PatB]

"M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

>Am I alone in thinking that duke reads reports of sex abuse by priests with
>a bottle of lube and a box of tissues at the ready?

Actually, .... yes.

[Street]

That's the impression he conveys, I agree. Duke's already on record as
having defended the "playful" tweaking of prepubescent girls' nipples and
"teasing" little boys by touching their penises by family members, as well
as dismissing oral and anal penetration by priests as not really being
"fucking".

https://tinyurl.com/yandj4uk

https://tinyurl.com/ycvggll2

[%]

why would you want to carry ,
the weight of what duke does around with you ,
you wanna end up like happy tab 7

[MattB]

How often do you or your evil priest? Personally if I caught a priest
harming a kid I'd beat the shit out of him.

[MattB]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:07:34 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>I think duke was an altar boy until he was 30.

Think Duke and Patrick were the few Altar boys that learned to enjoy
the rapes.

[%]

i'll answer your question after you answer mine

[Street]

> Duke the altar boy must have been constantly on the
> lookout for pedo priests. He flashed his gold cross
> necklace, he made suggestive comments, he even rubbed
> himself on the priests. Yet he was already chubby and
> the sort of asshole he is today. So he was often spurned.
>
> So it's no wonder duke wants more pedo priests. He just
> never got enough.


That's exactly the reason. Duke's had an insatiable hunger for homosexual
excesses from the time he was very young.

[PatB]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:25:55 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>Reading trouble?
>
>Duke just said it. What do you think "The average priest
>has raped ZERO children" means?

Let us see now.
Since 96+ percent of all the priests have never raped a child, I
would believe that 96 percent is well above the average.

Would you like a lesson on comprehension?

[duke]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:34:59 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:

Well, as nutty as you are, maybe so.

[duke]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:09:45 GMT, Street <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>> "duke" wrote in message news:24r8od12nm0nck406...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 13:23:55 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> > wrote:
>>
>>>> And now duke says that allegations of child abuse by priests are lies.
>>
>>> Where are the bloody bottoms. Where are the parents? Where is the >
>>> evidence. Where are the witnesses.
>>
>> Am I alone in thinking that duke reads reports of sex abuse by priests
>> with a bottle of lube and a box of tissues at the ready?
>
>
>That's the impression he conveys, I agree. Duke's already on record as
>having defended the "playful" tweaking of prepubescent girls' nipples

It's was a make up example. Was then, is now, and will be tomorrow.

>nd
>"teasing" little boys by touching their penises by family members, as well
>as dismissing oral and anal penetration by priests as not really being
>"fucking".

No way, asshole. No fairy should go around lying like that.

[duke]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:19:49 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:


>> >> According to the NY study report, about 80 priests were shown to have done the
>> >> dastardly deed and found guilty..
>>
>> >So you think that's "far, far too few"?
>>
>> Out of 40-50 thousand???

Not a hell of a lot over about 40 years.

>
>> >What would you prefer, that there are teh thousand
>> >priests convicted of pedophilia? A hundred thousand?

>> What do you want. Hang the whole bunch because of what 80 did over a 30-40 year
>> period?

>Whhoooooooooooossssshhh!!!

Yeah, flew right over the coo coo's nest making a point on your head.

[duke]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 08:21:35 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 01:39:12 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
>>
>> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:27:45 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:11:08 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"duke" wrote in message news:vjc0odhj14cn2u9vi...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:28:17 -0400, "M.I.Wakefield" <no...@present.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Because they raped children. You really don't get it, do you?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> It's more likely you raped children than the average priest.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Not so: The average priest has raped more than zero children, whereas I
>> >> >> >have raped precisely zero children.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The average priest has raped ZERO children.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are denying that any priest has ever raped children?
>> >>
>> >> You didn't start with "So", but your stupidity remains supreme.
>> >
>> >Ok, so Earl Weber denies that any RC priest ever raped a
>> >child.
>>
>> Ah, another "so" comment. Miserably inaccurate as usual.
>>
>> According to the study, 73% of the guilty did not involve rape or even attempted
>> rape.
>

>So, to you, that means no priest ever raped a child.

I personally never heard of one that did. Have you? The JJ report alluded to
about 27% that did or attempted to.

[M.I.Wakefield]

"duke" wrote in message news:21gaodlrtai0bco6g...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 00:09:45 GMT, Street <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >That's the impression he conveys, I agree. Duke's already on record as
> >having defended the "playful" tweaking of prepubescent girls' nipples

> It's was a make up example. Was then, is now, and will be tomorrow.

It was a very weird, and oddly specific, example. And if I had small
children, you'd be taking you life in your hands if you got within ten feet
of them.