Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: It's Duke vs. John Paul the Second -- you choose
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 1:32:02 AM5/1/13
to
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
> On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
> Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
> On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
> Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
SkyEyes
May 1, 2013, 1:44:41 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 8:41 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> writes:
> > will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
> So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
> is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
> "murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
> than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
> the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
> slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
> turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
> of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
> reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
> to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
> would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
> Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
> parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
> for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
> of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
> human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
> distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
> family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
> they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
> *become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
>
> To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
> point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
> referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
> opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
> summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
> and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
> human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
> is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
> that such things are evil when done by humans. IN SHORT, the story
> condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
> those who commit it. To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
> in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
> that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
> to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
> blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
> it isn't Duke.
So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.
<Spit>
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
> linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> writes:
> > Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > Pharaoh desperately wanted to tell his ministers it was against his
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
> So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
> is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
> "murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
> than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
> the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
> slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
> turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
> of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
> reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
> to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
> would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
> Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
> parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
> for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
> of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
> human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
> distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
> family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
> they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
> *become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
>
> To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
> point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
> referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
> opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
> summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
> and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
> human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
> is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
> that such things are evil when done by humans. IN SHORT, the story
> condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
> those who commit it. To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
> in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
> that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
> to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
> blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
> it isn't Duke.
So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.
<Spit>
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
SkyEyes
May 1, 2013, 1:49:03 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 8:47 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > "Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...
> > able to choose to let them go?
>
> There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
> He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart.
*NO*, *God* hardened Pharaoh's heart. Do you not read for
comprehension?
Just because
> God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
> choose it.
Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
> caused by God.
Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
> God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
> photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
> really responsible for it.
Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
of yours *actually exists*?
Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
alt.atheism.
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > "Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > Do you think he asked that his heart be hardened so that he would not be
>
> >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > able to choose to let them go?
>
> There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
> He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart.
*NO*, *God* hardened Pharaoh's heart. Do you not read for
comprehension?
Just because
> God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
> choose it.
Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
> caused by God.
Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
> God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
> photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
> really responsible for it.
Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
of yours *actually exists*?
Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
alt.atheism.
SkyEyes
May 1, 2013, 1:53:37 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
have.
comprehension? Or is the Elizabethan English throwing you off track?
If a person decides to make a particular choice, but an omnipotent,
omniscient deity pops in and cements the *other* choice in their
consciousness, that means that the god-critter has seriously
interfered with the free will of the person supposedly making the
choice.
You seem to think that free will is a discrete ability that functions
outside of the mind or of real events. Guess again.
Damn good thing that your God-thingy is nothing but a myth. Because
if it was real, it would be the epitome of evil.
> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>
> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
Excuse me all to hell, sonnyboy, but I was brought up reading the
> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>
> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
have.
>
> Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
> Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
> Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
In that he HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, nitwit. Can't you read for
> Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
> Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
> Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
comprehension? Or is the Elizabethan English throwing you off track?
If a person decides to make a particular choice, but an omnipotent,
omniscient deity pops in and cements the *other* choice in their
consciousness, that means that the god-critter has seriously
interfered with the free will of the person supposedly making the
choice.
You seem to think that free will is a discrete ability that functions
outside of the mind or of real events. Guess again.
Damn good thing that your God-thingy is nothing but a myth. Because
if it was real, it would be the epitome of evil.
SkyEyes
May 1, 2013, 1:55:26 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 3:30 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:19:40 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>duke wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
> >>>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
> >>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
> >>>> But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
> >>>> version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
> >>>> nonsense found in the Bible.
>
> >>> God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
> >>> hell truly await them.
>
> >>And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>
> >All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.
>
> Since there was no ark, the non-difference was that the whole story is
> fiction, just like everything else in Genesis. Still, the god found in
> Genesis is an untrustworthy bastard, worthy of nothing but contempt for
> his evil ways.
Ditto the god of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles....
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:19:40 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >>duke wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:28:17 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:30:01 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> >>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>> duke wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:53:07 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> So the god you preach has no love.
> >>>>>> Strawman. God never tortured or killed anyone.
> >>>>> On the contrary, it is written (Exodus 13:15) "And it came to pass, when
> >>>>> Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
> >>>>> the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast..."
> >>>> But Duke is telling us that this never happened. Duke believes his
> >>>> version of his religion, but he is not delusional enough to accept the
> >>>> nonsense found in the Bible.
>
> >>> God never ever hurt one person, but to those that acts against him, the fires of
> >>> hell truly await them.
>
> >>And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>
> >All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.
>
> Since there was no ark, the non-difference was that the whole story is
> fiction, just like everything else in Genesis. Still, the god found in
> Genesis is an untrustworthy bastard, worthy of nothing but contempt for
> his evil ways.
Ditto the god of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles....
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 7:26:15 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >our surroundings.
>>
>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> >>physical effects.
>>
>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>
>;
>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>;
>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>
>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
>
>
>You?
There's plenty of evidence for his existence, though. Sadly.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >our surroundings.
>>
>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> >>physical effects.
>>
>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>
>;
>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>;
>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>
>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
>
>
>You?
There's plenty of evidence for his existence, though. Sadly.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:07:17 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>you look stupid.
Sure I know what it means.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>you look stupid.
Sure I know what it means.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:09:27 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:38:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>> Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>> They didn't.
>>> Strawman.
>>
>> You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>> you look stupid.
>
>As if we didn't already know.
It works for me.
>Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>> Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>> They didn't.
>>> Strawman.
>>
>> You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>> you look stupid.
>
It works for me.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:10:23 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:27:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>Strawman.
>Not even close.
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>Strawman.
>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
It is. Heeheehee.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:13:00 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>you, grik..
>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>me?
>>
>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>
>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>you, grik..
>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>me?
>>
>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>
>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:14:46 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:17:26 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>> here.
>>> If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>>> as well?
>> No. Your soul is not brain-sensative.
>Then you could be a fricken genius in the afterworld.
Yet my eternal soul is no different than yours except what we make of it. Up,
up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyy.
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:44:28 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>> here.
>>> If God makes your brain retarded, does that mean your soul is retarded
>>> as well?
>> No. Your soul is not brain-sensative.
>Then you could be a fricken genius in the afterworld.
Yet my eternal soul is no different than yours except what we make of it. Up,
up and awayyyyyyyyyyyyy.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:20:28 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:23:03 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>>
>>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?
>
>Because we've adapted around it, stupid.
Thanks be to God.
Or were you suggesting that we had a lens and an eyeball grew around it, as you
clearly suggest?
Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
waves for vision, reading, etc.
You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>>here.
>>
>>>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>>here.
>>
>>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>>
>>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?
>
>Because we've adapted around it, stupid.
Thanks be to God.
Or were you suggesting that we had a lens and an eyeball grew around it, as you
clearly suggest?
Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
waves for vision, reading, etc.
You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:21:21 AM5/1/13
to
>> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
>Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
He fits the image of a black clown.
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
>Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
He fits the image of a black clown.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:22:22 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:37:17 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:22 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>
>Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".
And still waiting on a viable answer from you, to boot. You still can't see it.
And by your words, if you can't see it, it ain't.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:22 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>>> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>>
>>> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
>>
>>� Massa Duke he don't much like niggers that's uppity. .
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>>> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>>
>>> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
>>
>
>Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".
And still waiting on a viable answer from you, to boot. You still can't see it.
And by your words, if you can't see it, it ain't.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:23:11 AM5/1/13
to
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> our surroundings.
>>
>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>> physical effects.
>>
>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> our surroundings.
>>
>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>> physical effects.
>>
>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
Strawman.
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:23:58 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>> ... with a minus sign on it.
>
>That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
>face.
What charge is a "smiley face"?
>NBL
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>
>> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> > duke wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > our surroundings.
>>
>> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> > >> physical effects.
>;
>> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>;
>> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
>;
>> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> > duke wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > our surroundings.
>>
>> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> > >> physical effects.
>;
>> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>;
>> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
>> ... with a minus sign on it.
>
>That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
>face.
What charge is a "smiley face"?
>NBL
duke
May 1, 2013, 8:28:29 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:34:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>Uh, yea.
>>
>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.
>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"
No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.
Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>>No, just showing you that you're wrong.
>No, you weren't.
>>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>>removed.
>>>Now it's "blocked".
My words were "removed or blocked". Good grief but you lie a lot.
No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.
>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>Uh, yea.
>>
>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.
>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"
No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.
Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>>No, just showing you that you're wrong.
>No, you weren't.
>>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>>removed.
>>>Now it's "blocked".
My words were "removed or blocked". Good grief but you lie a lot.
No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
moral imperfection.
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 9:25:50 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:55:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:
This is why I keep telling y'all... Dionysus is the only way to go.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
wrote:
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
nature bats last
May 1, 2013, 9:30:52 AM5/1/13
to
On Apr 30, 7:13 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >><seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 29, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
> >>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
> >>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> You can't see either one.
>
> >>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >>>available human sense.
>
> >>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>
> >>>NBL
>
> >>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >>>year)
>
> >>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
> >>it. How sad is that?
>
> >nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>
> You're absolutely right about that. He doesn't bother to debate you on
> anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
> times.
>
> He's also light-years beyond you.
>
;
> Me, I'm just getting started and I haven't been exposed to enough of
> your malignant dorkiness yet.
"Malignant dorkiness"! I love the internal tension in
that phrase. Sort of like "calculated cluelessness" or
... or ... or like some other one.
NBL
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> >><seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 29, 1:56 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
> >>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
> >>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>
> >>>;
> >>>> You can't see either one.
>
> >>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >>>available human sense.
>
> >>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>
> >>>NBL
>
> >>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >>>year)
>
> >>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
> >>it. How sad is that?
>
> >nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>
> You're absolutely right about that. He doesn't bother to debate you on
> anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
> times.
>
> He's also light-years beyond you.
>
;
> Me, I'm just getting started and I haven't been exposed to enough of
> your malignant dorkiness yet.
"Malignant dorkiness"! I love the internal tension in
that phrase. Sort of like "calculated cluelessness" or
... or ... or like some other one.
NBL
> Cheers,
> Dreamer
> AA 2306
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 9:44:22 AM5/1/13
to
In what respect am I pushing moral relativism? If you mean that I'm
pushing relativism because God holds Egyptians and Israelites to the
same standard, then that's the opposite of moral relativism. If you are
worried that God is being held to a different standard than the
Israelites and Egyptians, well, duh. But nobody (up til now) has ever
been myopic enough to confuse the notion of a cosmic hierarchy with
moral relativism.
pushing relativism because God holds Egyptians and Israelites to the
same standard, then that's the opposite of moral relativism. If you are
worried that God is being held to a different standard than the
Israelites and Egyptians, well, duh. But nobody (up til now) has ever
been myopic enough to confuse the notion of a cosmic hierarchy with
moral relativism.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 9:50:35 AM5/1/13
to
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
>> Just because God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh
>> did not really choose it.
>
> Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
> over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
>
>> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>> caused by God.
>
> Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
> responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
> it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
You're merely begging the question of God's forcing Pharaoh to do
>> Just because God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh
>> did not really choose it.
>
> Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
> over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
>
>> But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>> caused by God.
>
> Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
> responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
> it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
anything. If it's so clear to you that he did so, why don't you kindly
present the case for it? "Oh, horseshit" and "That's odious" don't make
for convincing arguments.
>> God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
>> photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
>> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>> really responsible for it.
>
> Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
> besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
> of yours *actually exists*?
Again, so far as believers in God are concerned, I have accurately
described God. But since you apparently don't believe in God, I'm
amused that you still think you are in a position to tell me that he's
totally evil, and that I ought to accept your appraisal because "Oh
horseshit" and "FOAD."
> Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
> alt.atheism.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 9:57:06 AM5/1/13
to
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
> On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
>> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
>> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
>> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>>
>> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
>> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
>> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
>> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
>
> Excuse me all to hell, sonnyboy, but I was brought up reading the
> bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
> I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
> have.
So what?
> On Apr 30, 10:32 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> writes:
>> > On Apr 30, 6:24 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>> >> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>> >> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>> >> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>> >> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>
>> >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>> >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>> >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> > That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
>> > Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
>> > Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>>
>> Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
>> you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
>> on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
>> arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
>
> Excuse me all to hell, sonnyboy, but I was brought up reading the
> bible before I had the wit or gumption to challenge anything in it.
> I've read the bible through, cover to cover, more times than *you*
> have.
>> Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
>> Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
>> Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
>
> In that he HARDENED PHARAOH'S HEART, nitwit. Can't you read for
> comprehension? Or is the Elizabethan English throwing you off track?
>
> If a person decides to make a particular choice, but an omnipotent,
> omniscient deity pops in and cements the *other* choice in their
> consciousness, that means that the god-critter has seriously
> interfered with the free will of the person supposedly making the
> choice.
in" and "cementing" the other one against Pharaoh's will. It has God
hardening Pharaoh's heart, i.e. causing him to make the stubborn,
foolhardy choice. There is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that God
is this entity that is normally withdrawn from the world, then "pops in"
and interferes with everything when he feels like it. But there is tons
of evidence that in the opinions of the various authors, he is normally
present, creating and sustaining everything that happens. That is why
the absence of God is an occasion for lamentation, not merely business
as usual. As an atheist, you come with different assumptions about
divine immanence; but they have no place in the mind of the author of
Exodus.
> You seem to think that free will is a discrete ability that functions
> outside of the mind or of real events. Guess again.
the Israelites go, then it can only be in virtue of his free will that
he does not let them go.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 1, 2013, 10:21:00 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:10:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:27:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>They didn't.
>>>Strawman.
>>Not even close.
>
>>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
>
>It is. Heeheehee.
Not even close.
Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
And, they don't think it's credible for the reasons I mentioned.
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:27:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>They didn't.
>>>Strawman.
>>Not even close.
>
>>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
>
>It is. Heeheehee.
Not even close.
Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 10:21:39 AM5/1/13
to
In article <Ta6dnURXupV2-R3M...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> �RLMeasures wrote:
>
> > � damn right. It seems as if the Christian God has all of mankind's
> > worst attributes.
>
> Christians say that God is not the author of confusion. Can you say
> Tower of Babel?
� ... which obviously never was because masonry structures are limited in
height - and especially so with bitumen mortar.
<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> �RLMeasures wrote:
>
> > � damn right. It seems as if the Christian God has all of mankind's
> > worst attributes.
>
> Christians say that God is not the author of confusion. Can you say
> Tower of Babel?
� ... which obviously never was because masonry structures are limited in
height - and especially so with bitumen mortar.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 1, 2013, 10:36:33 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:28:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:34:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>>Uh, yea.
>>>
>>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.
>
>>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"
>
>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>moral imperfection.
Yep.
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:34:53 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>You're the one who said she was sin free, Dook.
>>>>>>>Yep, he always was, she was at the hands of Jesus.
>>>>>>John Paul II says you're full of shit.
>>>>>Uh, nooooo.
>>>>Uh, yea.
>>>
>>>Show me where JPII said I'm wrong.
>
>>his truth asserts "that Mary, free from original sin, was also
>>preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was
>>granted to her in order to fill her entire life"
>
>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>moral imperfection.
Just as I said.
You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
Really, Dook...
Try and keep up.
>>>>>She was born of mankind. Her son Jesus, 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, removed
>>>>>or blocked it at her own conception. As the ARK that was to carry the Lord
>>>>>Jesus for 9 months, it's appropriate that she was pure.
>>>No, just showing you that you're wrong.
>>No, you weren't.
>
>>>>First you were saying with utter certainty that original sin was
>>>>removed.
>>>>Now it's "blocked".
>
>My words were "removed or blocked". Good grief but you lie a lot.
"Mary was sin free because Jesus removed her sin, and at her own
conception, no less." you wrote.
Nothing about -blocked- there, Dook.
You rightards really shouldn't lie about what you wrote just a few
posts up thread.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 10:40:23 AM5/1/13
to
In article
<0bfb5f92-16e3-4d92...@vq7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
<0bfb5f92-16e3-4d92...@vq7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> On Apr 30, 7:12=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >
> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > > duke wrote:
> > In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >
> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> > > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > our surroundings.
> >
> > > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> > > >> physical effects.
> ;
> > > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> ;
> > > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> > > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> ;
> > ... with a minus sign on it.
>
> That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
> face.
>
� True happiness is seeing happy electrons in great abundance.
> > > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > our surroundings.
> >
> > > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> > > >> physical effects.
> ;
> > > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> ;
> > > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> > > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> ;
> > ... with a minus sign on it.
>
> That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
> face.
>
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 10:58:02 AM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:38:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
>Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>> Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>> They didn't.
>>> Strawman.
>>
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
wrote:
>Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>> Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>> They didn't.
>>> Strawman.
>>
>> You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>> you look stupid.
>
>As if we didn't already know.
Shhhhhh! He doesn't think you do.
>> you look stupid.
>
>As if we didn't already know.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 11:46:21 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:13:00 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>>you, grik..
>>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>>me?
>>>
>>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>>
>>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
>
>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
You're too lazy to have an original thought?
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>>you, grik..
>>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>>me?
>>>
>>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>>
>>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
>
>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 11:51:30 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:22:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:37:17 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:22 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>>>> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
>>>
>>>� Massa Duke he don't much like niggers that's uppity. .
>>
>>Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".
>
>And still waiting on a viable answer from you, to boot. You still can't see it.
>And by your words, if you can't see it, it ain't.
>
No, dork. Seriously, you're an embarrassment... Electricity is a known
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:37:17 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:11:22 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <tOWdnWSDbfXVWOLM...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>>><linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>>>> > blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
>>>
>>>� Massa Duke he don't much like niggers that's uppity. .
>>
>>Thank you. I haven't laughed this hard since "Prove electricity".
>
>And still waiting on a viable answer from you, to boot. You still can't see it.
>And by your words, if you can't see it, it ain't.
>
physical phenomenon. Plenty of evidence to support it. An invisible
supernatural being is not a physical phenomenon, and I invite you to
show me concrete evidence that this supernatural being is anything
more than an idea.
I can't see Australia... doesn't mean it isn't there. I can't see
electricity... doesn't mean it isn't there.... but both Australia and
electricity have tons of supporting physical evidence.
God.... doesn't.
And you continue to cling to the idea... which leads me to believe
that you're a bit of a loon.
Single word answers don't count any more. Bible quotes are not
evidence. Say-so is not evidence. Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Got anything else?
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 11:52:08 AM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> our surroundings.
>>>
>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>> physical effects.
>>>
>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
>Strawman.
>
I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>>duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> our surroundings.
>>>
>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>> physical effects.
>>>
>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
>Strawman.
>
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 11:53:33 AM5/1/13
to
over it.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Patrick
May 1, 2013, 11:55:36 AM5/1/13
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>I think Francis named himself after Frank Sinatra.
Stop thinking.
You might hurt yourself.
>
>I think Francis named himself after Frank Sinatra.
Stop thinking.
You might hurt yourself.
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 12:22:17 PM5/1/13
to
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 12:23:41 PM5/1/13
to
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 12:47:10 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>They didn't.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>you look stupid.
>
>Sure I know what it means.
Then explain how it's a strawman.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>They didn't.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>>
>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>you look stupid.
>
Then explain how it's a strawman.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
duke
May 1, 2013, 1:41:04 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:52:08 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>
>>Strawman.
>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
Conclusion that is total misrepresentation of the issue.
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>
>>Strawman.
>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
duke
May 1, 2013, 1:43:43 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>our surroundings.
>>
>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>physical effects.
>>
>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
Say what?? Now what is he dreaming about?
>Electricity is not an idea, Dorkster. It's verifiable by simple and
>objective means.
So is God. Heeheehee.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>our surroundings.
>>
>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>physical effects.
>>
>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
Say what?? Now what is he dreaming about?
>Electricity is not an idea, Dorkster. It's verifiable by simple and
>objective means.
So is God. Heeheehee.
Alex W
May 1, 2013, 1:44:19 PM5/1/13
to
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 1:44:45 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:20:28 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:23:03 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>>>here.
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>>>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>>>
>>>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?
>>
>>Because we've adapted around it, stupid.
>
>Thanks be to God.
>
>Or were you suggesting that we had a lens and an eyeball grew around it, as you
>clearly suggest?
>
>Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
>waves for vision, reading, etc.
>
>You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
>understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
>
You still haven't understood that you have given no evidence that a
suernatural being was responsible for anything at all.
Start with that, and we can talk. Until then, your knowledge of
biology is demonstrably as good as your knowledge of baking.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:23:03 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:03:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:48:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The fact that we have a lens in our eyeball is that exacting evidence why God is
>>>>>here.
>>>
>>>>There is no evidence of supernatural design in the human eyeball. It
>>>>is in fact evidence of exceptionally bad design, so if that's your
>>>>proof, it's spectacularly bad.
>>>
>>>Then why do we have a lens in our eyeball?
>>
>>Because we've adapted around it, stupid.
>
>Thanks be to God.
>
>Or were you suggesting that we had a lens and an eyeball grew around it, as you
>clearly suggest?
>
>Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
>waves for vision, reading, etc.
>
>You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
>understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
>
You still haven't understood that you have given no evidence that a
suernatural being was responsible for anything at all.
Start with that, and we can talk. Until then, your knowledge of
biology is demonstrably as good as your knowledge of baking.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
duke
May 1, 2013, 1:44:45 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
But the best part is that I can't see either of you either, but by golly, I know
you're there by your goofy remarks.
wrote:
>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >our surroundings.
>>
>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> >>physical effects.
>>
>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>
>;
>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>;
>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >our surroundings.
>>
>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>> >>physical effects.
>>
>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>
>;
>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
But the best part is that I can't see either of you either, but by golly, I know
you're there by your goofy remarks.
duke
May 1, 2013, 1:45:08 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:26:15 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >our surroundings.
>>>
>>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>> >>physical effects.
>>>
>>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>>
>>
>>;
>>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>>;
>>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>>
>>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
>>
>>
>>You?
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:33:07 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 30, 7:12�am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>> ><dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >our surroundings.
>>>
>>> >>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>> >>physical effects.
>>>
>>> >But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>>
>>
>>;
>>> As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>> electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>>;
>>> Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>>
>>Come to think of it, Dreamer...I can't see Dook either.
>>
>>
>
>There's plenty of evidence for his existence, though. Sadly.
There you to. God says "hello".
Alex W
May 1, 2013, 1:45:44 PM5/1/13
to
as he is of organising anorgy in a brothel.
duke
May 1, 2013, 1:45:42 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:13:00 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>>><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 29, 1:56�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>;
>>>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
>>>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
>>>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>>>>
>>>>;
>>>>> You can't see either one.
>>>>
>>>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>>>>available human sense.
>>>>
>>>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>NBL
>>>>
>>>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>>>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>>>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>>>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
>>>>year)
>>
>>>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>>>it. How sad is that?
>>
>>nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>
>You're absolutely right about that.
I know.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:02:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:03:24 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>>><seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Apr 29, 1:56�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>Right, just like God is obvious by the effects on our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>;
>>>>> >Not at all in the same way, Dork. Being able to touch physical
>>>>> >evidence of electricity working does not have a parallel with anything
>>>>> >the sky pixie is rumored to have created.
>>>>
>>>>;
>>>>> You can't see either one.
>>>>
>>>>So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>>>>available human sense.
>>>>
>>>>You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>NBL
>>>>
>>>>(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>>>>agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>>>>His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>>>>that cost insurance companies trillions every
>>>>year)
>>
>>>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>>>it. How sad is that?
>>
>>nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>
>You're absolutely right about that.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:11:35 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:13:00 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>>>it. How sad is that?
>>nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>C'mon NBL... you GAVE him more ammunition and he didn't even teeheehee
>>>it. How sad is that?
>>nbl is many steps more intelligent than you are.
>You're absolutely right about that. He doesn't bother to debate you on
>anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
>times.
>He's also light-years beyond you.
Not according to his past performance.
>anything because you've demonstrated your stupidity to him enough
>times.
>He's also light-years beyond you.
>Me, I'm just getting started and I haven't been exposed to enough of
>your malignant dorkiness yet.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:12:06 PM5/1/13
to
>> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
>Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
A black clown.
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>
>Then why do you deride Mr. Obama's complexion by calling him Buckwheat?
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:17:44 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:09:34 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
>>
>� Who's idea was the appendix?
Great question.
>In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> You can't see either one.
>>
>> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>> >available human sense.
>> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>
>> Yep, but you can't see it.
>
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
><seqk...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> You can't see either one.
>>
>> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>> >available human sense.
>> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>>
>>
>> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
>> >year)
>>
>> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
>> >year)
>>
>> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>
>> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
>> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>>
>>
>� Who's idea was the appendix?
Great question.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:24:17 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>you look stupid.
You make them up all the time, grik.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>They didn't.
>>
>>Strawman.
>
>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>you look stupid.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:24:52 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:47:10 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>>They didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman.
>>>
>>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>>you look stupid.
>>
>>Sure I know what it means.
>
>Then explain how it's a strawman.
If you knew what a strawman is, you wouldn't have to ask.
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>>They didn't.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman.
>>>
>>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>>you look stupid.
>>
>>Sure I know what it means.
>
>Then explain how it's a strawman.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:29:14 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:36:33 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>>moral imperfection.
>Yep.
>Just as I said.
>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
I gave you the report.
>>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>>moral imperfection.
>Yep.
>Just as I said.
>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 2:29:43 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:43:43 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>our surroundings.
>>>
>>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>physical effects.
>>>
>>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>>As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>
>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>
Dork, I'm not the one that said "Prove electricity". Proving
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>our surroundings.
>>>
>>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>physical effects.
>>>
>>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
>>As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>
>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>
electricity exists is not the same as proving God exists. You can
yammer about the semantics all you like, but a physical phenomenon is
not the same as a supernatural one, so the proofs are DIFFERENT.
>>Feeling an idea like God is impossible.
>
>Say what?? Now what is he dreaming about?
>
>>Electricity is not an idea, Dorkster. It's verifiable by simple and
>>objective means.
>
>So is God. Heeheehee.
>
Remember, you can't use books written by humans as "objective means".
You need repeatable and verifiable things that could only have come
from a supernatural creator.
You claim God is verifiable by simple and objective means... you have
yet to prove your claim in any way other than "Teeheehee".
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
Christopher A. Lee
May 1, 2013, 2:33:27 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:29:43 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
disputed and unevidenced, are fairly standard for theists.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:43:43 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>>physical effects.
>>>>
>>>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>>
>>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>>
>
>Dork, I'm not the one that said "Prove electricity". Proving
>electricity exists is not the same as proving God exists. You can
>yammer about the semantics all you like, but a physical phenomenon is
>not the same as a supernatural one, so the proofs are DIFFERENT.
Bad analogies that equate the undisputed and evidenced with the
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:43:43 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:54 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:58:39 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>>And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>>physical effects.
>>>>
>>>>But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>As NBL said... you don't need vision to confirm the presence of
>>>electricity as a real phenomenon. You can feel it as a charge.
>>
>>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>>
>
>Dork, I'm not the one that said "Prove electricity". Proving
>electricity exists is not the same as proving God exists. You can
>yammer about the semantics all you like, but a physical phenomenon is
>not the same as a supernatural one, so the proofs are DIFFERENT.
disputed and unevidenced, are fairly standard for theists.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:35:40 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:37:36 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Moses was saved by God. It had to do with his personal integrity.
>So, are you saying that although God was outraged by
>Moses' ordering the slaughter of the Midianites, down
>to the last toddler, He forgave Moses?
We know moses was saved. Something must have been done.
wrote:
>> Moses was saved by God. It had to do with his personal integrity.
>So, are you saying that although God was outraged by
>Moses' ordering the slaughter of the Midianites, down
>to the last toddler, He forgave Moses?
We know moses was saved. Something must have been done.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:37:02 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:11:41 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>>
>> All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.
>They won the lottery.
No, ALL the animals on the ARK were saved.
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:50:09 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And what did all those babies and calves in Egypt do against God?
>>
>> All the animals on the ark were saved. Something was different.
>They won the lottery.
No, ALL the animals on the ARK were saved.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:37:31 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:30:53 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>Since there was no ark
Haahaahaa.
>Since there was no ark
Haahaahaa.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:38:37 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
>• If we believe Jewish storytellers.
They got it on film also.
>> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
>• If we believe Jewish storytellers.
They got it on film also.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:39:28 PM5/1/13
to
>> Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
>> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?
>And the bears mauling 42 young lads who made fun of the prophet Elisha's
>bald head was prophetic language of what Catholic priests do in their
>bathhouses.
strawman.
>> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?
>And the bears mauling 42 young lads who made fun of the prophet Elisha's
>bald head was prophetic language of what Catholic priests do in their
>bathhouses.
strawman.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:41:17 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:39:10 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
>to do with your silly claim that the LORD slaughtering
>all the firstborn infants of Egypt was "a fore-telling
>of hell"?
>Actually, I'm quite confident you did know that.
>That's why you did it.
Correct in concept, but backwards. The righteous were saved.
wrote:
>> Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
>> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?
>Didn't you know what you just said had nothing at all
>> Didn't you know that the parting of the waters for moses thus saving the Jews is
>> prophetic language of water baptism saving humankind after the cross?
>to do with your silly claim that the LORD slaughtering
>all the firstborn infants of Egypt was "a fore-telling
>of hell"?
>Actually, I'm quite confident you did know that.
>That's why you did it.
Correct in concept, but backwards. The righteous were saved.
duke
May 1, 2013, 2:42:28 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:04:25 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>No, God didn't murder his own son. Jesus is God become man.
>So God became human, had himself killed, and then ghosted himself back
>into existence whereupon he went to heaven to resume his .... well,
>whatever he does.
Well, that just lowered your intelligence even more.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>No, God didn't murder his own son. Jesus is God become man.
>So God became human, had himself killed, and then ghosted himself back
>into existence whereupon he went to heaven to resume his .... well,
>whatever he does.
Well, that just lowered your intelligence even more.
Dreamer In Colore
May 1, 2013, 2:46:03 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:41:04 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:52:08 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>>
>>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>
>>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
>
>Conclusion that is total misrepresentation of the issue.
>
No, Dork. I didn't mean "define strawman". If I wanted you to define
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:52:08 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>>
>>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>>
>>>Strawman.
>
>>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
>
>Conclusion that is total misrepresentation of the issue.
>
what a strawman was, I would have said "I would love to see you define
strawman."
I very clearly said "I would love to see you explain how that's a
strawman" which referred to the statement given by linuxgal and I'll
repeat here so it's really easy for you to see.
"You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
sufficiently you'll see a little round ball."
seeing electricity.
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 4:41:59 PM5/1/13
to
In article <78o2o8hivc4knpb8q...@4ax.com>, duke
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
> >� If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
> They got it on film also.
>
� bananas
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
> >� If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
> They got it on film also.
>
�RLMeasures
May 1, 2013, 4:48:53 PM5/1/13
to
In article <7om2o89nslde3h641...@4ax.com>, duke
designed the appendix?
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:09:34 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> ><seqk...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You can't see either one.
> >>
> >> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >> >available human sense.
> >> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
> >>
> >> Yep, but you can't see it.
> >>
> >> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >> >year)
> >>
> >> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> >> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
> >>
> >> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
> >>
> >� Who's idea was the appendix?
>
> Great question.
>
� Well, since we know that Satan designed the sex organs, maybe he
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:09:34 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
> ><seqk...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You can't see either one.
> >>
> >> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
> >> >available human sense.
> >> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
> >>
> >> Yep, but you can't see it.
> >>
> >> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
> >> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
> >> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
> >> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
> >> >year)
> >>
> >> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
> >> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
> >>
> >> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
> >>
> >� Who's idea was the appendix?
>
> Great question.
>
designed the appendix?
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 1, 2013, 4:48:58 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:24:52 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:47:10 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>>>They didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Strawman.
>>>>
>>>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>>>you look stupid.
>>>
>>>Sure I know what it means.
>>
>>Then explain how it's a strawman.
>
>If you knew what a strawman is, you wouldn't have to ask.
But, he did ask.
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:47:10 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:07:17 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:07:05 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:57:46 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:43 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>The RCC wanted the real truth out.
>>>>>>Then they should have opened their archives to independent auditors.
>>>>>>They didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Strawman.
>>>>
>>>>You use this word, but you do not know what it means, Dork. That makes
>>>>you look stupid.
>>>
>>>Sure I know what it means.
>>
>>Then explain how it's a strawman.
>
>If you knew what a strawman is, you wouldn't have to ask.
Why don't you answer?
Hmmmmmm?
Hahahahahahahaha...
You're such a cunt, Dook.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Silen...@hotmail.com
May 1, 2013, 4:50:40 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:29:14 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:36:33 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>>>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>>>moral imperfection.
>
>>Yep.
>>Just as I said.
>
>>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>
>I gave you the report.
You LIED, Dook.
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:36:33 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>No sin or imperfection can be attributed to Mary
>>>2. The Church has constantly regarded Mary as holy and free from all sin or
>>>moral imperfection.
>
>>Yep.
>>Just as I said.
>
>>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>
>I gave you the report.
Full stop.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
W.T.S.
May 1, 2013, 5:51:33 PM5/1/13
to
In article <pme2o89jfg1a34630...@4ax.com>, pbarker001
@woh.rr.com says...
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >I think Francis named himself after Frank Sinatra.
>
> Stop thinking.
> You might hurt yourself.
More likely, "Francis the Talking Mule".
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
@woh.rr.com says...
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >
> >I think Francis named himself after Frank Sinatra.
>
> Stop thinking.
> You might hurt yourself.
More likely, "Francis the Talking Mule".
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271
>
http://tinyurl.com/anghyfr
>
http://tinyurl.com/a887er9
>
http://tinyurl.com/c4thugl
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
>
http://tinyurl.com/7hk9gk8
>
http://tinyurl.com/ybmwsk4
>
http://tinyurl.com/ayk7czf
>
http://tinyurl.com/43hp62x
>
http://tinyurl.com/b29z62n
>
Jeanne Douglas
May 1, 2013, 5:56:55 PM5/1/13
to
In article <n822o8he6o2jvpvl9...@4ax.com>,
a strawman is.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 06:19:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> >> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> our surroundings.
> >>
> >>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >>> physical effects.
> >>
> >> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> >You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> >sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> Strawman.
Oh, dear, there goes poor poor dukie again, proving he has no clue what
> >> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> our surroundings.
> >>
> >>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >>> physical effects.
> >>
> >> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> >You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> >sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> Strawman.
a strawman is.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 6:24:43 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:41:40 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> writes:
>
>> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>>
>>>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> Pharaoh desperately wanted to tell his ministers it was against his
>> will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
>So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
>is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
>"murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
>than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
>the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
>slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
>turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
>of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
>reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
>to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
>would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
>Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
>parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
>for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
>of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
>human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
>distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
>family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
>they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
>*become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
Aside from the fact that this never happened, the whole story is just a
"my dad can beat up your dad" bit of puffery.
>To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
>point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
>referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
>opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
>summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
>and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
>human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
>is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
>that such things are evil when done by humans.
What a morally obtuse idea that a god can be completely immoral and
unforgiving, but people should be better than the gods they worship --
or is it okay for them to be every bit as vindictive as that murderous
Angel of the Lord?
>IN SHORT, the story
>condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
>those who commit it.
Not at all proportionate -- and it blames every member of a group for
the evils that some did. The children of Egyptian peons would not have
been complicit in these alleged murders.
> To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
>in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
>that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
>to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
>blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
>it isn't Duke.
Nonsense. The story tells us that the god is striking back and refusing
to allow the leader of the country to change. The story tells us that
the god of the story is vindictive beyond the alleged harm done. Given
that the whole thing is fiction, it defames Egyptians and celebrates
those who never were engaged in an Exodus.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> writes:
>
>> Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>>
>>>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> Pharaoh desperately wanted to tell his ministers it was against his
>> will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
>So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
>is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
>"murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
>than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
>the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
>slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
>turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
>of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
>reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
>to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
>would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
>Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
>parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
>for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
>of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
>human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
>distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
>family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
>they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
>*become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
Aside from the fact that this never happened, the whole story is just a
"my dad can beat up your dad" bit of puffery.
>To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
>point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
>referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
>opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
>summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
>and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
>human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
>is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
>that such things are evil when done by humans.
What a morally obtuse idea that a god can be completely immoral and
unforgiving, but people should be better than the gods they worship --
or is it okay for them to be every bit as vindictive as that murderous
Angel of the Lord?
>IN SHORT, the story
>condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
>those who commit it.
Not at all proportionate -- and it blames every member of a group for
the evils that some did. The children of Egyptian peons would not have
been complicit in these alleged murders.
> To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
>in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
>that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
>to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
>blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
>it isn't Duke.
Nonsense. The story tells us that the god is striking back and refusing
to allow the leader of the country to change. The story tells us that
the god of the story is vindictive beyond the alleged harm done. Given
that the whole thing is fiction, it defames Egyptians and celebrates
those who never were engaged in an Exodus.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 6:25:07 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 09:44:22 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
>
>> So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.
>
>In what respect am I pushing moral relativism? If you mean that I'm
>pushing relativism because God holds Egyptians and Israelites to the
>same standard, then that's the opposite of moral relativism. If you are
>worried that God is being held to a different standard than the
>Israelites and Egyptians, well, duh. But nobody (up til now) has ever
>been myopic enough to confuse the notion of a cosmic hierarchy with
>moral relativism.
So that god doesn't forgive anyone.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
>
>> So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.
>
>In what respect am I pushing moral relativism? If you mean that I'm
>pushing relativism because God holds Egyptians and Israelites to the
>same standard, then that's the opposite of moral relativism. If you are
>worried that God is being held to a different standard than the
>Israelites and Egyptians, well, duh. But nobody (up til now) has ever
>been myopic enough to confuse the notion of a cosmic hierarchy with
>moral relativism.
So that god doesn't forgive anyone.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 6:26:00 PM5/1/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:47:16 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> "Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...
>> able to choose to let them go?
>
>There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
>He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart.
That is not what the story says.
> Just because
>God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
>choose it. But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>caused by God. God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
>photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
>choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>really responsible for it.
The god of Genesis is an indefensibly evil god, not worthy of worship by
any moral humans.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> "Daniel Baumgarten" <db...@sdf.org> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:9btmwsf...@ma.sdf.org...
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>>
>>>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>>
>> Do you think he asked that his heart be hardened so that he would not be
>>>
>>>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>>
>> able to choose to let them go?
>
>There's no question that Pharaoh was "able to choose" to let them go.
>He chose not to, and this choice makes him hard of heart.
That is not what the story says.
> Just because
>God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh did not really
>choose it. But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>caused by God. God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
>photosynthesis. That does not remove our responsibility for our
>choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>really responsible for it.
The god of Genesis is an indefensibly evil god, not worthy of worship by
any moral humans.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 6:29:43 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 09:50:35 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
>
>>> Just because God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh
>>> did not really choose it.
>>
>> Bingo! Now you're getting warm. If a god make you choose one action
>> over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
>>
>>>�But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>> responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
>> it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
>
>You're merely begging the question of God's forcing Pharaoh to do
>anything. If it's so clear to you that he did so, why don't you kindly
>present the case for it? "Oh, horseshit" and "That's odious" don't make
>for convincing arguments.
Nor do claims that are inconsistent with the text of the story. When you
stop misrepresenting the story, you won't get so much pushback.
>>> �God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>> besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
>> of yours *actually exists*?
>
>This is beside the point, and you are trying to change the subject.
>Again, so far as believers in God are concerned, I have accurately
>described God.
Who cares? Why do we care if believers have deluded themselves so much
that black is white and up is down when it comes to allowing their god
to wreak havoc and murder with impunity?
>But since you apparently don't believe in God, I'm
>amused that you still think you are in a position to tell me that he's
>totally evil, and that I ought to accept your appraisal because "Oh
>horseshit" and "FOAD."
You need to read your scriptures. Why not start with the bar bet that is
found in Job and then we can see Job's absurd attempts to justify the
evil that was done to him for no reason at all. The god found in Job is
as evil as the other.
>> Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
>> alt.atheism.
>
>umad? I think she's mad.
Merely angry, I would think. We have enough mindless defenses of gods
here.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> writes:
>
>>> Just because God caused this choice, you want to claim that Pharaoh
>>> did not really choose it.
>>
>> over another, then you no longer have free choice, do you?
>>
>>>�But this is a contradiction in terms; whatever is real, so
>>> far as we theists are concerned, is real precisely *because* it is
>>> caused by God.
>>
>> Oh, horseshit. You're saying that whatever choices a man makes, he's
>>> caused by God.
>>
>> responsible for; but if a god forces him to make a particular choice,
>> it's still the man's fault. That's odious.
>
>You're merely begging the question of God's forcing Pharaoh to do
>anything. If it's so clear to you that he did so, why don't you kindly
>present the case for it? "Oh, horseshit" and "That's odious" don't make
>for convincing arguments.
Nor do claims that are inconsistent with the text of the story. When you
stop misrepresenting the story, you won't get so much pushback.
>>> �God gives existence to all our choices, our virtues and
>>> vices, in the same way that he gives existence to gravity and
>>> photosynthesis. �That does not remove our responsibility for our
>>> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>>> really responsible for it.
>>
>> Got any logical, objective, verifiable *evidence* - something else
>>> photosynthesis. �That does not remove our responsibility for our
>>> choices; the very essence of a choice is that the one who made it is
>>> really responsible for it.
>>
>> besides bible quotes and rhetoric, you know, *data* - that this "God"
>> of yours *actually exists*?
>
>This is beside the point, and you are trying to change the subject.
>Again, so far as believers in God are concerned, I have accurately
>described God.
Who cares? Why do we care if believers have deluded themselves so much
that black is white and up is down when it comes to allowing their god
to wreak havoc and murder with impunity?
>But since you apparently don't believe in God, I'm
>amused that you still think you are in a position to tell me that he's
>totally evil, and that I ought to accept your appraisal because "Oh
>horseshit" and "FOAD."
You need to read your scriptures. Why not start with the bar bet that is
found in Job and then we can see Job's absurd attempts to justify the
evil that was done to him for no reason at all. The god found in Job is
as evil as the other.
>> Get back to us when you have. Until such a time, kind FOAD out of
>> alt.atheism.
>
>umad? I think she's mad.
Merely angry, I would think. We have enough mindless defenses of gods
here.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 6:30:19 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 01:32:02 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
>> Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
>> Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>
>Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
>you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
>on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
>arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
>
>Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
>Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
>Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
Show us where the text defends your interpretation.
>> On Apr 30, 6:24�pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? �My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> That's because (obviously) you don't *wish* to. God hardening
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>> > Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
>>> > that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
>>> > forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
>>> > every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>>>
>>> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? �My
>>> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
>>> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>>
>> Pharaoh's heart is *exactly* that, God stacking the deck against
>> Pharaoh's letting the Israelites go.
>
>Well, the very same accusation could be levied at the accuser. Perhaps
>you don't *wish* to read what the text actually says about God's effect
>on the Pharaoh, but rather your preconceived notion of God as a kind of
>arbitrary tyrant colors your interpretation.
>
>Again, I will ask, where in the text is it said that God "forced"
>Pharaoh not to change his mind -- that is to say, that it was not
>Pharaoh's choice to change his mind?
Show us where the text defends your interpretation.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 6:33:12 PM5/1/13
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> The god of Genesis is an indefensibly evil god, not worthy of worship by
> any moral humans.
I am only quoting this little bit from all three of your previous posts,
> The god of Genesis is an indefensibly evil god, not worthy of worship by
> any moral humans.
because everything you wrote amounts to just this: begging the question,
incessant re-statement of a controversial thesis, with no substantive
argument to go along with it. It's a shame that you make claims that
you're clearly unable to defend by your own abilities, and it is a
bitter irony given the alleged "indefensibility" of God's actions.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 6:51:25 PM5/1/13
to
Ex 7:1-5.
1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of
Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
2 Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to
Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders
in the land of Egypt.
4 And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will
bring forth my army and my people the children of Israel out of the land
of Egypt, by very great judgments.
5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched
forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel
out of the midst of them.
Your interpretation says that God somehow forced Pharaoh, against his
will, to choose not to let the Israelites go; that to "harden his heart"
is the same as to restrict his free will. But as already stated, this
is a contradiction in terms. It is not a point of controversy that
Pharaoh willed not to let the Israelites go. But your claim is that
Pharaoh somehow "actually" wanted to let them go, that if he had been
given the choice he would have chosen against God's plan. Therefore you
are claiming that Pharaoh's will was made against Pharaoh's will. But
Pharaoh's will, whether it is caused by God or uncaused, is what it is.
It cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Therefore
he cannot want to let Israel go and also NOT want to let Israel go at
one and the same time. How you could believe such a patently
self-contradictory hypothesis is a mystery, and I am truly astonished.
God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of
Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
2 Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to
Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders
in the land of Egypt.
4 And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will
bring forth my army and my people the children of Israel out of the land
of Egypt, by very great judgments.
5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched
forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel
out of the midst of them.
Your interpretation says that God somehow forced Pharaoh, against his
will, to choose not to let the Israelites go; that to "harden his heart"
is the same as to restrict his free will. But as already stated, this
is a contradiction in terms. It is not a point of controversy that
Pharaoh willed not to let the Israelites go. But your claim is that
Pharaoh somehow "actually" wanted to let them go, that if he had been
given the choice he would have chosen against God's plan. Therefore you
are claiming that Pharaoh's will was made against Pharaoh's will. But
Pharaoh's will, whether it is caused by God or uncaused, is what it is.
It cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Therefore
he cannot want to let Israel go and also NOT want to let Israel go at
one and the same time. How you could believe such a patently
self-contradictory hypothesis is a mystery, and I am truly astonished.
God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 7:02:26 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 18:33:12 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
You have chosen to misrepresent the story of the Exodus for your own
reasons. I have no reason to accept your claims, particularly since you
refuse to offer any actual text from the story to defend your claims.
wrote in alt.atheism:
reasons. I have no reason to accept your claims, particularly since you
refuse to offer any actual text from the story to defend your claims.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 7:04:46 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 18:51:25 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>> Show us where the text defends your interpretation.
>
>Ex 7:1-5.
>1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of
>Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
>2 Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to
>Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
>3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders
>in the land of Egypt.
Showing that the god in this story has set up the king.
>4 And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will
>bring forth my army and my people the children of Israel out of the land
>of Egypt, by very great judgments.
>5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched
>forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel
>out of the midst of them.
Thank you for showing us that the god in the story is unwilling to
accept any repentence.
>Your interpretation says that God somehow forced Pharaoh, against his
>will, to choose not to let the Israelites go; that to "harden his heart"
>is the same as to restrict his free will. But as already stated, this
>is a contradiction in terms. It is not a point of controversy that
>Pharaoh willed not to let the Israelites go. But your claim is that
>Pharaoh somehow "actually" wanted to let them go, that if he had been
>given the choice he would have chosen against God's plan. Therefore you
>are claiming that Pharaoh's will was made against Pharaoh's will. But
>Pharaoh's will, whether it is caused by God or uncaused, is what it is.
>It cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Therefore
>he cannot want to let Israel go and also NOT want to let Israel go at
>one and the same time. How you could believe such a patently
>self-contradictory hypothesis is a mystery, and I am truly astonished.
The story makes it clear that the king had been vacillating.
>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>> Show us where the text defends your interpretation.
>
>Ex 7:1-5.
>1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of
>Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
>2 Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall speak to
>Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.
>3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders
>in the land of Egypt.
>4 And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will
>bring forth my army and my people the children of Israel out of the land
>of Egypt, by very great judgments.
>5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched
>forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel
>out of the midst of them.
accept any repentence.
>Your interpretation says that God somehow forced Pharaoh, against his
>will, to choose not to let the Israelites go; that to "harden his heart"
>is the same as to restrict his free will. But as already stated, this
>is a contradiction in terms. It is not a point of controversy that
>Pharaoh willed not to let the Israelites go. But your claim is that
>Pharaoh somehow "actually" wanted to let them go, that if he had been
>given the choice he would have chosen against God's plan. Therefore you
>are claiming that Pharaoh's will was made against Pharaoh's will. But
>Pharaoh's will, whether it is caused by God or uncaused, is what it is.
>It cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Therefore
>he cannot want to let Israel go and also NOT want to let Israel go at
>one and the same time. How you could believe such a patently
>self-contradictory hypothesis is a mystery, and I am truly astonished.
>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 7:09:16 PM5/1/13
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
>
> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Instead of changing the
>>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
>
> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
will be devastating.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 7:11:26 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:09:16 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>>>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>>>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>>>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>>>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>>>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>>>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>>>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>>>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>>>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>>>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>>>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
>>
>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>
>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>Instead of changing the
>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>will be devastating.
Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>>God can only mean in Ex 7:1-5 that he will cause Pharaoh's heart to be
>>>hardened. As to the means by which Pharaoh's heart would be hardened by
>>>God, we can surmise that it could only have been Pharaoh's free choice
>>>of the will. For hardness of heart, which is a vice (i.e. a bad habit),
>>>results from repeatedly making many free, but stubborn or foolish
>>>choices over some time. But these choices, insofar as they are made,
>>>exist. And whatever exists, according to the scriptures, is made by God
>>>(Gen 1:1). Therefore, again according to the scriptures, God is the
>>>cause of the existence of Pharaoh's choices and his consequent hardness
>>>of heart. This explanation fits the textual and contextual evidence far
>>>better than yours, and you do not have to believe in God to accept it.
>>>And if you are a reasonable person, I believe that you will accept it.
>>
>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>
>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>Instead of changing the
>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>will be devastating.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 7:22:56 PM5/1/13
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>
>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>
> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>
>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>
> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
the rational creatures.
3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
"terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
4. No one is equal to God.
>>Instead of changing the
>>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>>will be devastating.
>
> Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
"so vociferously" about it? It's a fair question.
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 8:00:35 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:22:56 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>
>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>
>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>
>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
No evidence supports that allegation.
>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
> the rational creatures.
That story is known to be fiction.
>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
That story is still fiction.
>4. No one is equal to God.
No evidence supports your claim that others are not equal to your god.
No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
exist.
>>>Instead of changing the
>>>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>>>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>>>will be devastating.
>>
>> Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
>
>It's not fiction.
The evidence is clear that it is fiction.
> But you believe it is fiction, so why do you argue
>"so vociferously" about it? It's a fair question.
Because people who believe the stories of this nasty god seem to be
nasty themselves.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>
>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>
>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>
>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
> the rational creatures.
>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
>4. No one is equal to God.
No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
exist.
>>>Instead of changing the
>>>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>>>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>>>will be devastating.
>>
>> Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
>
>It's not fiction.
> But you believe it is fiction, so why do you argue
>"so vociferously" about it? It's a fair question.
nasty themselves.
Christopher A. Lee
May 1, 2013, 8:08:49 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:00:35 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:22:56 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>
>>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>>
>>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>>
>>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>
>No evidence supports that allegation.
The man's a moron - the baseless assertion that it does something is
hardly evidence for it.
>>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
>> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
>> the rational creatures.
>
>That story is known to be fiction.
The man's a moron - you can't use the Bible to prove itself.
You might just as well use the Greek myths to prove that Zeus really
does live up Mount Olympus and cast thunderbolts.
>>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
>> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
>> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
>> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
>> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
>
>That story is still fiction.
The man's still a moron - you can't use the Bible to prove itself.
>>4. No one is equal to God.
>
>No evidence supports your claim that others are not equal to your god.
>No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
>exist.
The man's a moron - one again he makes a baseless assertion about the
very thing he is supposed to be providing evidence for, instead of
providing it.
>>>>Instead of changing the
>>>>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>>>>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>>>>will be devastating.
>>>
>>> Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
>>
>>It's not fiction.
>
>The evidence is clear that it is fiction.
The man's a moron - it's obviously fiction for exactly the same reason
the Greek myths are.
>> But you believe it is fiction, so why do you argue
>>"so vociferously" about it? It's a fair question.
The man's a moron - we don't believe it is fiction" - it remains
merely the myths and legends of a long gone culture until demonstrated
otherwise, just like the ancient Greek, Indian, Celtic, Chinese, Norse
and other myths.
The man's also a liar - we don't "argue so vociferously" about it - we
simply respond to sociopathic morons who insist it is true.
>Because people who believe the stories of this nasty god seem to be
>nasty themselves.
If they kept their myths and legends among themselves instead of
insisting to
wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:22:56 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>
>>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>>
>>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>>
>>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>
>No evidence supports that allegation.
hardly evidence for it.
>>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
>> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
>> the rational creatures.
>
>That story is known to be fiction.
You might just as well use the Greek myths to prove that Zeus really
does live up Mount Olympus and cast thunderbolts.
>>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
>> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
>> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
>> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
>> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
>
>That story is still fiction.
>>4. No one is equal to God.
>
>No evidence supports your claim that others are not equal to your god.
>No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
>exist.
very thing he is supposed to be providing evidence for, instead of
providing it.
>>>>Instead of changing the
>>>>subject, why don't you save your energy for the devastating
>>>>counter-argument with which you are going to devastate me? I bet it
>>>>will be devastating.
>>>
>>> Why do you argue so vociferiously about fiction?
>>
>>It's not fiction.
>
>The evidence is clear that it is fiction.
the Greek myths are.
>> But you believe it is fiction, so why do you argue
>>"so vociferously" about it? It's a fair question.
merely the myths and legends of a long gone culture until demonstrated
otherwise, just like the ancient Greek, Indian, Celtic, Chinese, Norse
and other myths.
The man's also a liar - we don't "argue so vociferously" about it - we
simply respond to sociopathic morons who insist it is true.
>Because people who believe the stories of this nasty god seem to be
>nasty themselves.
insisting to
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 8:06:12 PM5/1/13
to
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:22:56 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>
>>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>>
>>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>>
>>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>
> No evidence supports that allegation.
>
>>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
>> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
>> the rational creatures.
>
> That story is known to be fiction.
>
>>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
>> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
>> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
>> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
>> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
>
> That story is still fiction.
>
>>4. No one is equal to God.
>
> No evidence supports your claim that others are not equal to your god.
> No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
> exist.
You asked me to give evidence that the God presented in Exodus is worthy
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 19:22:56 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>>
>>>>> Nothing in the story makes this god look remotely worthy of worship.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
>>>
>>> Show me some evidence that the god presented here is worthy of worship.
>>
>>1. He alone causes everything and everyone to exist.
>
> No evidence supports that allegation.
>
>>2. He saves his people from Egyptian oppression, thereby honoring his
>> Word and revealing his saving mercy even to humans, the lowest of
>> the rational creatures.
>
> That story is known to be fiction.
>
>>3. He administers justice to Pharaoh and the Egyptian people who
>> participated in the oppression of the Israelites. As the one who
>> gives life to all the children of Egypt (see point #1), he is
>> justified in taking it away (I think your people use the word
>> "terminate"). No one else has this right, because:
>
> That story is still fiction.
>
>>4. No one is equal to God.
>
> No evidence supports your claim that others are not equal to your god.
> No evidence even supports the claim that your god or any other god
> exist.
of worship, not that he exists. Would you like to evaluate my reasons
according to the criteria you actually stated, or will we go on hopping
randomly from subject to subject?
> Because people who believe the stories of this nasty god seem to be
> nasty themselves.
characters in scripture cure others of their nastiness? Do you think
that becoming an atheist automagically makes you a better person?
Where's the evidence for that exactly -- over there with the "Oh
horseshits," "fuck off and dies," etc. of the world? Or over here with
your laughable inability simply to adhere to the principle of
non-contradiction?
Free Lunch
May 1, 2013, 8:11:04 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 20:06:12 -0400, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org>
Why would an imaginary character be worthy of worship?
Anyway, your claims don't even make it a very nice god. You imply that
we need to worship that god because it is oppressive and will oppress us
if we aren't nice to it.
Anyway, your claims don't even make it a very nice god. You imply that
we need to worship that god because it is oppressive and will oppress us
if we aren't nice to it.
Daniel Baumgarten
May 1, 2013, 8:32:20 PM5/1/13
to
He wouldn't be, if he were imaginary. But existence is not a
first-order predicate; which you should have learned in atheist school
when they (Immanuel Kant, btw, who was a believer) taught you how to
refute the ontological argument for the existence of God.
> Anyway, your claims don't even make it a very nice god. You imply that
> we need to worship that god because it is oppressive and will oppress us
> if we aren't nice to it.
God is hardly oppressive. You're free to rebel against him all you
want. You can claim that he doesn't exist, slander his followers,
etc. to your heart's content. But this isn't very good for you. First
of all, it turns you into a vicious, angry person with an axe to grind
against the majority of the world's population; and that makes you a
kind of misanthrope. Secondly (and more importantly, so it should be
first) when you die, you will be given a final opportunity to repent,
suffer your just punishments for some amount of time, and then go to
meet God for eternal bliss in the Beatific Vision. But if you have
sinned mortally over the course of your life, you will be very attached
to your vices, and it won't be easy for you to give them up for God's
sake. You will be more likely to prefer eternal damnation to personal
holiness, and God will let you go there -- because he isn't a tyrant.
That's God's justice. He operates in just the same way in Exodus.
Pharaoh hardens his heart against God; but in the end, it's impossible
to go against God's plan, and what Pharaoh chooses for himself and his
people works out to the glorification of God and God's people. And so
Pharaoh sees, in his final moments as the waters come crashing down upon
him, that God had been working through him all along. For this very
fact, he hates the God of Israel. And this condition, which he takes
with him to the grave, constitutes hell.
Do you think that the ten plagues, particularly the deaths of the
firstborns, were unjust punishments upon the house of Egypt? Perhaps if
you bake a cake, it is an injustice to then devour it. But the
difference between yourself and a cake is infinitely less than the
difference between God and you.
first-order predicate; which you should have learned in atheist school
when they (Immanuel Kant, btw, who was a believer) taught you how to
refute the ontological argument for the existence of God.
> Anyway, your claims don't even make it a very nice god. You imply that
> we need to worship that god because it is oppressive and will oppress us
> if we aren't nice to it.
want. You can claim that he doesn't exist, slander his followers,
etc. to your heart's content. But this isn't very good for you. First
of all, it turns you into a vicious, angry person with an axe to grind
against the majority of the world's population; and that makes you a
kind of misanthrope. Secondly (and more importantly, so it should be
first) when you die, you will be given a final opportunity to repent,
suffer your just punishments for some amount of time, and then go to
meet God for eternal bliss in the Beatific Vision. But if you have
sinned mortally over the course of your life, you will be very attached
to your vices, and it won't be easy for you to give them up for God's
sake. You will be more likely to prefer eternal damnation to personal
holiness, and God will let you go there -- because he isn't a tyrant.
That's God's justice. He operates in just the same way in Exodus.
Pharaoh hardens his heart against God; but in the end, it's impossible
to go against God's plan, and what Pharaoh chooses for himself and his
people works out to the glorification of God and God's people. And so
Pharaoh sees, in his final moments as the waters come crashing down upon
him, that God had been working through him all along. For this very
fact, he hates the God of Israel. And this condition, which he takes
with him to the grave, constitutes hell.
Do you think that the ten plagues, particularly the deaths of the
firstborns, were unjust punishments upon the house of Egypt? Perhaps if
you bake a cake, it is an injustice to then devour it. But the
difference between yourself and a cake is infinitely less than the
difference between God and you.
linuxgal
May 1, 2013, 9:47:32 PM5/1/13
to
duke wrote:
>
> There you to. God says "hello".
Watch out he doesn't slip the Sicilian Rope over your neck when he says
that, Frankie Five Angels.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
>
> There you to. God says "hello".
Watch out he doesn't slip the Sicilian Rope over your neck when he says
that, Frankie Five Angels.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
linuxgal
May 1, 2013, 10:19:46 PM5/1/13
to
�RLMeasures wrote:
>>
> � He apparently does not understand what a strawman is.
He understands strawmen like Brother Love understands plonking.
>>
> � He apparently does not understand what a strawman is.
He understands strawmen like Brother Love understands plonking.
nature bats last
May 2, 2013, 12:13:48 AM5/2/13
to
On Apr 30, 10:44 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 8:41 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> writes:
sneer quotes?
Such elaborate sophistry in defense of some old folk
tale, it's rather admirable.
I suppose.
In any event, it is a pretty dramatic example of the
effects of Layolaosis -- "We should always be disposed
to believe that which appears to us to be white is
really black, if the hierarchy of the church so
decides." (Ignatius Loyola). I have no idea whether or
not the Catholic strain of the disease is involved in
Mr. Baumgarten's case. but the pathology is the same.
In any case, I rather prefer Michael Ejercito's
(remember him?) far more compact presentation of this
same argument. Michael's responses were inevitably
one-liners to the effect that since God is the biggest
mofo on the block, whatever God wants to do is, ipso
facto, moral.
;
> <Spit>
Well, yeah.
NBL
> --
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> --
> On Apr 30, 8:41 pm, Daniel Baumgarten <db...@sdf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> writes:
> > > Daniel Baumgarten wrote:
> > >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> > >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> > >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> > >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> > >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> > >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> > >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> > >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes:
>
> > >>> Did you miss who was responsible for this alleged mass murder? Remember
> > >>> that the ones that supposedly died did so because the god in that story
> > >>> forced Pharaoh not to change his mind. That god intentionally murdered
> > >>> every firstborn child who didn't have the blood. What an evil god.
>
> > >> Where do you read that God "forced" Pharaoh not to change his mind? My
> > >> Bible has God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart, but I don't see the
> > >> implication anywhere that this was against Pharaoh's will.
>
> > > Pharaoh desperately wanted to tell his ministers it was against his
> > > will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
> > So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
> > is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
> > "murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
> > than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
> > the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
> > slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
> > turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
> > of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
> > reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
> > to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
> > would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
> > Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
> > parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
> > for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
> > of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
> > human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
> > distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
> > family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
> > they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
> > *become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
>
> > > will but the spell was so strong he couldn't do it.
>
> > So you agree that what Free Lunch is claiming about the Exodus narrative
> > is absurd. How about the notion that the Bible depicts a God who
> > "murdered" the first born children of Egypt? It's perhaps even sillier
> > than the idea that God compelled Pharaoh against his will to persecute
> > the Israelites. The Egyptians were, of course, fully complicit in the
> > slaughter of the children of the Israelites. They were even ordered to
> > turn their Israelite neighbors over to Pharaoh's men and to inform them
> > of any children who were being hidden. The story gives this as the
> > reason why Moses was put in a basket and sent down the river, eventually
> > to be discovered by Pharaoh's daughter and raised as an Egyptian. It
> > would be disngenuous to object, as you might, that the children of the
> > Egyptians were being punished undeservedly for the crimes of their
> > parents. Not only is this because no one bothers to criticize Pharaoh
> > for his act of mass infanticide, but only blames God; but as the maker
> > of all children, God has a right to un-make them that Pharaoh (or any
> > human) does not have. Furthermore, in asserting this right, God doesn't
> > distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites per se; if an Israelite
> > family were to disobey the commandment to observe the first Passover,
> > they would lose their first born like any Egyptian -- indeed, they would
> > *become* Egyptians by the very fact of their indifference to God.
>
> > To further object that this God does not exist is to completely miss the
> > point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
> > referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
> > opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
> > summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
> > and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
> > human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
> > is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
> > that such things are evil when done by humans. IN SHORT, the story
> > point, since this whole exercise is being couched by Free Lunch as a
> > referendum on moral sophistication of the Israelite culture that, in his
> > opinion, fabricated these stories. The whole point of the story, neatly
> > summarized in the Canticle of Miriam so that even dense folk like you
> > and Free Lunch can grasp it, is that God is rightly honored above any
> > human being such as Pharaoh; that what is appropriate to God's authority
> > is not appropriate to that of any earthly king. The scripture *agrees*
> > condemns infanticide as such and threatens a proportionate penalty to
> > those who commit it. To say that the God of Israel is an evil character
> > in this story because he is guilty of infanticide himself, and therefore
> > that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
> > to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
> > blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
> > it isn't Duke.
>
;
> > that Abrahamic believers were and are infanticidal moral hypocrites, is
> > to deliberately misrepresent the text, not to mention a form of modern
> > blood libel. So we know who the real bigot in this discussion is, and
> > it isn't Duke.
>
> So you're pushing moral relativism, then. Good to know.
Was your first hint when he put the word "murdered" in
sneer quotes?
Such elaborate sophistry in defense of some old folk
tale, it's rather admirable.
I suppose.
In any event, it is a pretty dramatic example of the
effects of Layolaosis -- "We should always be disposed
to believe that which appears to us to be white is
really black, if the hierarchy of the church so
decides." (Ignatius Loyola). I have no idea whether or
not the Catholic strain of the disease is involved in
Mr. Baumgarten's case. but the pathology is the same.
In any case, I rather prefer Michael Ejercito's
(remember him?) far more compact presentation of this
same argument. Michael's responses were inevitably
one-liners to the effect that since God is the biggest
mofo on the block, whatever God wants to do is, ipso
facto, moral.
;
> <Spit>
Well, yeah.
NBL
> --
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> --
nature bats last
May 2, 2013, 12:16:17 AM5/2/13
to
On May 1, 11:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
;
> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
;
> If we believe Jewish storytellers.
;
> They got it on film also.
Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
NBL>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
;
> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
;
> If we believe Jewish storytellers.
;
> They got it on film also.
Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
NBL>
nature bats last
May 2, 2013, 12:21:26 AM5/2/13
to
On May 1, 5:23 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 30, 7:12 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >> ... with a minus sign on it.
>
;
> >That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
> >face.
;
> What charge is a "smiley face"?
Twenty bucks, Sister, same as downtown.
(OK, who wants to be the first to explain
this well-known Catholic joke to Dook?)
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 30, 7:12 am, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> In article <tOWdnWeDbfUZWOLMnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
>
> >> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> > duke wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> >> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > our surroundings.
>
> >> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >> > >> physical effects.
> >;
> >> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> >;
> >> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> >> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> >;
> >> <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> > duke wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
> >> > > <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > our surroundings.
>
> >> > >> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
> >> > >> physical effects.
> >;
> >> > > But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>
> >;
> >> > You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
> >> > sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>
> >> ... with a minus sign on it.
>
;
> >That was my first image too. And perhaps a smiley
> >face.
;
> What charge is a "smiley face"?
Twenty bucks, Sister, same as downtown.
(OK, who wants to be the first to explain
this well-known Catholic joke to Dook?)
�RLMeasures
May 2, 2013, 6:08:40 AM5/2/13
to
In article
<6ae3933c-3b47-4d2e...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>, nature
bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 11:38=A0am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
<6ae3933c-3b47-4d2e...@j2g2000pbx.googlegroups.com>, nature
bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 11:38=A0am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> >
>
> ;
> > >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
> ;
> > If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
> ;
> > They got it on film also.
>
> Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
> The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
>
*** Some of Duke's posts are definitely puzzling.
> >
>
> ;
> > >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
> ;
> > If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
> ;
> > They got it on film also.
>
> Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
> The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
>
duke
May 2, 2013, 6:37:04 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 18:44:19 +0100, Alex W <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:46:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:13:00 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>>>>you, grik..
>>>>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>>>>me?
>>>>>
>>>>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>>>>
>>>>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
>>>
>>>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
>>
>> You're too lazy to have an original thought?
>
>Original thought is the Original Sin.
Only if it is to deny God. Does that sound familiar in your case?
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:46:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:13:00 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:12:40 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:45:23 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:55:04 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You wanted a new thread. Go ahead and start one.
>>>>>>>>I've started plenty. You keep responding. It's your turn, Dork. Come
>>>>>>>>up with something to talk about instead of hijacking other threads.
>>>>>>>>You can do it!
>>>>>>>But I won't, at least not for you because you always want others to cater to
>>>>>>>you, grik..
>>>>>>Right. How exactly is asking you for evidence getting you to cater to
>>>>>>me?
>>>>>
>>>>>You want a new thread. Go for it.
>>>>
>>>>Evasion noted. You're too lazy to do any meaningful work.
>>>
>>>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
>>
>> You're too lazy to have an original thought?
>
>Original thought is the Original Sin.
Only if it is to deny God. Does that sound familiar in your case?
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:45:08 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 10:21:00 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>>>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
>>It is. Heeheehee.
>Not even close.
More unfounded silent garbage.
>>>Neither does your calling it a strawman change the fact that nobody
>>>except Catholic partisans think the JJ study is credible.
>>It is. Heeheehee.
>Not even close.
More unfounded silent garbage.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:47:19 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:52:08 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>
>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
Misdirected response.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:23:11 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:26:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>>> <dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> our surroundings.
>>>>
>>>>> And again, your analogy fails. Electricity has clearly visible
>>>>> physical effects.
>>>>
>>>> But you can't see the electricity itself, numbnuts..
>>
>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>
>>
>
>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
Misdirected response.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:48:30 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:46:03 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>>>Strawman.
>>>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
>>Conclusion that is total misrepresentation of the issue.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>You must be one of those guys who thinks if you magnify an electron
>>>>>sufficiently you'll see a little round ball.
>>>>Strawman.
>>>I would love to see you explain how that's a strawman.
>No, Dork. I didn't mean "define strawman". If I wanted you to define
>what a strawman was, I would have said "I would love to see you define
>strawman."
You're really weak on clarification, aren't you.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:49:54 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 14:29:43 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>Dork, I'm not the one that said "Prove electricity".
YOU........responded with lightning.
> Proving
>electricity exists is not the same as proving God exists. You can
>yammer about the semantics all you like, but a physical phenomenon is
>not the same as a supernatural one, so the proofs are DIFFERENT.
Both face the same identification situation.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The issue you offered that one could **SEE** electricity in a lightning bolt.
>>You were wrong, wrong, wrong. Welcome to your world, grik dummy.
>Dork, I'm not the one that said "Prove electricity".
YOU........responded with lightning.
> Proving
>electricity exists is not the same as proving God exists. You can
>yammer about the semantics all you like, but a physical phenomenon is
>not the same as a supernatural one, so the proofs are DIFFERENT.
Both face the same identification situation.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:50:34 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:33:27 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
wrote:
>Bad analogies that equate the undisputed and evidenced with the
>disputed and unevidenced, are fairly standard for theists.
Grik is very bad with comprehension.
wrote:
>Bad analogies that equate the undisputed and evidenced with the
>disputed and unevidenced, are fairly standard for theists.
Grik is very bad with comprehension.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:51:31 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:48:53 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>In article <7om2o89nslde3h641...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:09:34 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>> ><seqk...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> You can't see either one.
>> >>
>> >> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>> >> >available human sense.
>> >> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, but you can't see it.
>> >>
>> >> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>> >> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>> >> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>> >> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
>> >> >year)
>> >>
>> >> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> >> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>> >>
>> >> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
>> >>
>> >� Who's idea was the appendix?
>>
>> Great question.
>>
>� Well, since we know that Satan designed the sex organs, maybe he
>designed the appendix?
The greatest design for the procreation of human life comes from satan???
Shirley you jest.
>In article <7om2o89nslde3h641...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:09:34 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nfcvn89rh2ilpsm6r...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:49:44 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last
>> ><seqk...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> You can't see either one.
>> >>
>> >> >So, one-sense no-sense Dook thinks vision is the only
>> >> >available human sense.
>> >> >You can feel electricity. You may trust me on this.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, but you can't see it.
>> >>
>> >> >(of course I'm being pedantic here...I've already
>> >> >agreed with Dook that you can detect God by
>> >> >His acts on this world: those "Acts of God"
>> >> >that cost insurance companies trillions every
>> >> >year)
>> >>
>> >> Along with creation, vision, hear, smell, touch, taste, the human body as
>> >> blueprint for all things man has fabricated, color, beauty, love, etc.
>> >>
>> >> All these clearly show the effects for the presence of our almighty God.
>> >>
>> >� Who's idea was the appendix?
>>
>> Great question.
>>
>� Well, since we know that Satan designed the sex organs, maybe he
>designed the appendix?
The greatest design for the procreation of human life comes from satan???
Shirley you jest.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:53:11 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 13:44:45 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
>>waves for vision, reading, etc.
>>You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
>>understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
>You still haven't understood that you have given no evidence that a
>suernatural being was responsible for anything at all.
The truth is in the evidence.
Now about the eye separation in humans?
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Isn't it magnificent that God gave us an ability in the lens to focus light
>>waves for vision, reading, etc.
>>You still haven't told me why human eyes are separated as they are. You do
>>understand, of course, that it's another gift from God, don't you. Heeheehee.
>You still haven't understood that you have given no evidence that a
>suernatural being was responsible for anything at all.
The truth is in the evidence.
Now about the eye separation in humans?
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:54:02 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:46:21 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
>You're too lazy to have an original thought?
I was doing fine with the old thread.
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You wanted a new thread. Go for it.
>You're too lazy to have an original thought?
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:55:17 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 16:50:40 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>>I gave you the report.
>You LIED, Dook.
I gave you the report.
>>>You, on the other hand, claimed Mary's sin was -removed-.
>>>>Sounds like you are still lying about what JPII said.
>>I gave you the report.
>You LIED, Dook.
I gave you the report.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:56:26 AM5/2/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 21:16:17 -0700 (PDT), nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 1, 11:38�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>
> ;
>> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
>;
>> If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
>;
>> They got it on film also.
>
>Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
>The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
No way.
But silly rl comments deserve an appropriate response.
wrote:
>On May 1, 11:38�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 07:18:21 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>
> ;
>> >> The blood on the door crossarm saved so many.
>;
>> If we believe Jewish storytellers.
>
>;
>> They got it on film also.
>
>Is it just me, or is Dook slowly turning into
>The Poster Currently Known As '%' ?
But silly rl comments deserve an appropriate response.
duke
May 2, 2013, 7:57:54 AM5/2/13
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages