Feed on Posts or Comments 17 April 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Oct 2013 09:44 pm

One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist

Over 3,000 people looked at this thread on Friday, and gave the forum its best day ever in terms of visitors. It is an email chain where an atheist questions a Christian apologist after the apologist’s university lecture:

Made up evidence for God? [#1999]

Good reading.

1,087 Responses to “One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist”

  1. on 19 Nov 2013 at 7:55 pm 1.Christ Follower said …

    Christ The Lord all mighty, creator of heaven and earth and Jesus is real.(in my option). I wish even though I don’t know any of you people! Especially the ones who don’t believe that Jesus is real, I hope you some how will believe someday before your lifetime ends because I care about you, even if I don’t know you. You just need to believe in him. But blogging about Jesus saying that he is not real only makes it worse. I care about all of you and I am praying for all of you non believers. Just one Sunday morning get in your vehicle if you have one or bike or walk to a local Christian church and just sit or stand in that pew and just listen with all your heart and mind about what words and testimony that that priest or pastor is saying because he/she is a believer in Christ and if you want I bet my life on it that after that service, if you go up to them and ask them to help you get saved/have him come into your heart. Jesus and The Lord love and care about you, in the Christian bible in chapter John:16 it says ” For god so loved the world that he gave his ONE and Only Son for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life” God sent HIS ONE and ONLY son down to earth to save YOU from sin and Jesus sacrificed everything for us and when we beat him and nailed him to the cross without a care and died, He still loved and loves us and forgave us for what we did that day in Jerusalem. Jesus and The Lord love everyone of you even if you don’t believe in him he still loves you and watches over you, he’s right by you right now. He’s actually everywhere and just remember this song: Jesus loves me.

    Jesus loves me! This I know,
    For the Bible tells me so;
    Little ones to Him belong;
    They are weak, but He is strong.

    Refrain:
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    The Bible tells me so.

    Jesus loves me! This I know,
    As He loved so long ago,
    Taking children on His knee,
    Saying, “Let them come to Me.”

    Jesus loves me still today,
    Walking with me on my way,
    Wanting as a friend to give
    Light and love to all who live.

    Jesus loves me! He who died
    Heaven’s gate to open wide;
    He will wash away my sin,
    Let His little child come in.

    Jesus loves me! He will stay
    Close beside me all the way;
    Thou hast bled and died for me,
    I will henceforth live for Thee.

    I am praying for all of you

    Love,
    Maggie McDonald

  2. on 21 Nov 2013 at 11:54 pm 2.Angus and Alexis said …

    And of course, the random preacher arrives then leaves.

  3. on 26 Nov 2013 at 12:37 am 3.bill said …

    Imagine…you create path to perceived truth…you develop historical evidence…you seek followers…you promise conversion (sic)..you have well known leaders…you make your belief public…all you need is a punished martyr and you have Christianity without the millions who play out the deeds of helping humanity and play out the real message of Him who spoke these “isms”

  4. on 26 Nov 2013 at 12:42 am 4.bill said …

    Let me add the famous Stephen Hawkings is cared for by the believing English nurse..nuff said

  5. on 27 Nov 2013 at 4:27 pm 5.freddies_dead said …

    3.bill said …

    Imagine…you create path to perceived truth…you develop historical evidence…you seek followers…you promise conversion (sic)..you have well known leaders…you make your belief public…all you need is a punished martyr and you have Christianity without the millions who play out the deeds of helping humanity and play out the real message of Him who spoke these “isms”

    The most important thing we should take from this word salad is the very first word “Imagine”. Why? Because it’s all we can do when it comes to God(s). And why do we have to imagine them? Because they don’t actually exist.

    4.bill said …

    Let me add the famous Stephen Hawkings is cared for by the believing English nurse..nuff said

    Apart from the need for a citation can you give us any clue as to what this has to do with the question of God’s existence?

    In what way does Hawking possibly having a nurse who believes prove that whichever God you believe in exists bill?

  6. on 16 Dec 2013 at 3:14 am 6.Everyone said …

    Interesting post. We are suppose to believe the atheist student rendition of events that took place with this Christian professor. How honorable he chose not to release the professors name or an outside source to verify the claims.

    On a similar note, atheist hero Lawrence Krauss was recently busted in his debates with William Lane Craig for purposely misrepresenting a letter from Alexander Vilenkin in order to support a point. In other words he lied and hoped not to be discovered.

    Krauss was desperate since he had already been scorched by Craig in a debate at NC State. Of course for the atheist Krauss, his lies supported what he considers a greater good therefore it was OK. Typical tactics in the atheist world.

  7. on 16 Dec 2013 at 1:41 pm 7.alex said …

    “We are suppose to believe the atheist student rendition of events…”

    nope, you moron. nobody is asking you to do anything except present your god evidence. diversions don’t do shit for your god.

    “How honorable he chose not to release…”

    let’s say he’s criminal, you happy? how does this prove your god?

    “On a similar note, atheist hero Lawrence Krauss..”

    he ain’t my hero. where’s the hero list? how does this prove your god?

    “Krauss was desperate since he had already been scorched….”

    who cares? i burned myself yesterday and how does that prove your god?

    all this crap you keeping posting is the same ole tired shit. roll out the lies next. do it, hor.

  8. on 17 Dec 2013 at 1:40 am 8.Everyone said …

    “nobody is asking you to do anything”

    Oh Alexander! Silly Willy, the thread is about an atheist vs a Christian apologist.

    Such a simple little fella. Remember, seek help this Christmas season. This is the greatest gift you can give to yourself.

  9. on 10 Jan 2014 at 6:13 pm 9.Anonymous said …

    Your an Idiot

  10. on 12 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 10.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yes, we know “A” is an idiot.

    I think we solved that several years ago.

  11. on 12 Jan 2014 at 3:11 am 11.A said …

    “Your an Idiot”

    lol!!! Yes! You are mine! Lol!!

    Hilarious!

    Sorry I had to shut the blog down boys. I am just too busy to keep things going.

    Late

  12. on 12 Jan 2014 at 5:13 am 12.Angus and Alexis said …

    Come to think of it, what is the deal with this blog?
    Is it like…dead or something?

  13. on 13 Jan 2014 at 8:49 pm 13.DPK said …

    Dead indeed…. funny how once our friend the Asstrophysicist decided he was too busy… ALL the other theists just happened to disappear at the same time. LOL…… but he wasn’t sock puppeting!!

  14. on 14 Jan 2014 at 7:21 am 14.Angus and Alexis said …

    Well, i do believe there were a few non “A” theists here, but they left…

  15. on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:48 pm 15.alex said …

    Whywontgodhealamputees . org is available. I can fire it up. Anybody care to write articles?

  16. on 15 Jan 2014 at 3:10 am 16.Angus and Alexis said …

    I could.

    PM me on the WWGHA forum if you want to do so.

  17. on 16 Jan 2014 at 7:32 pm 17.40 Year Atheist said …

    Atheist take issue with the parody on Atheist arguments. It’s amazing how many Atheists are literalists despite their hatred of literalism. Nonetheless, I have responded with the following list regarding the Atheist thought process:
    1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.

    2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.

    3. Backfill the intellectual and moral void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.

    4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.

    5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.

    6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.

    7. Demand that government be beholden to their views, and only their views, exclusively (because they are so tolerant).

    8. Be vociferously offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not yet underground and are thus visually offensive. The FFRF has claimed to be made physically ill at the sight. BUT:

    9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the amoral/immoral. That’s because those activities are now morally acceptable, and religion is the only remaining immorality and cannot be tolerated unless it is underground and not available to be seen by impressionable children who might be corrupted. Media tolerance for sex and violence is fine; media attachment to the offensive morality of the Other cannot be tolerated, and is purged by consensus.

    10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology, especially very small towns and school districts. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.

    11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.

    12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you personally understand Atheism.

    13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.

    14. Form churches.

    15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.

    16. Create an individual morality which fits the individual Atheist’s proclivity and thus is also volatile.

    17. Insist that Atheists are Good without God.

    18. Campaign against theism with billboard and bus sign attacks, claiming that the presence of religion is an attack on themselves, the Victims.

    19. Become the Saviors of mankind, as well as Victims. Classism is thus natural to the Atheist.

    20. Being the Saviors/Messiahs requires the designation of classes of Victims and Oppressors; the government is the perfect place to apply Messiahism, since it has the ability to attack the Oppressors and keep the Victims on the plantations

  18. on 17 Jan 2014 at 3:35 am 18.Angus and Alexis said …

    Ohh no, hes posting that stupid shit again.

  19. on 17 Jan 2014 at 3:35 pm 19.freddies_dead said …

    20 assertions suggesting atheists can’t back up their worldview with an argument and yet there’s not a single argument to back any of those assertions up. The hypocrisy, it burns.

  20. on 17 Jan 2014 at 5:21 pm 20.DPK said …

    I was about to write a point by point answer to 40years mind boggling list of false statements, twisted logic, and outright lies… and then thought, “what’s the point?” He isn’t going to defend them, or engage in any actual debate. So the only reply really necessary is this:
    What a bunch of bullshit.

  21. on 21 Jan 2014 at 4:23 pm 21.A said …

    40 YA I love the list but is it complete? I will need to ponder.

    We need to add this incorrigible need to form a religion in order to proclaim no God exists. That could #21. Will they be forming churches to proclaim that Santa and Leprechauns do mo exist?….the S&L church? Lol!!!!!

  22. on 21 Jan 2014 at 9:23 pm 22.DPK said …

    A far more interesting topic would be why theists like A/40 have such an intense pathological need to lie about atheists and what atheism actually is. Like a dog looking at a tv remote, trying to think it must be a bone, because they can’t think any other way.

  23. on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:40 pm 23.alex said …

    “Will they be forming churches to proclaim that Santa and Leprechauns do mo exist?….the S&L church? Lol!!!!!”

    does the african bushman go to a church? you, a dumb motherfucker, ya?

  24. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:12 am 24.the messenger said …

    23.alex, I have provided proof of GOD many times.

    You are an idiot.

  25. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:14 am 25.the messenger said …

    Alex, tell me, what is so evil about the bible?

    The bible teaches love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, heart, integrity, and loyalty.

    HOW IS THIS BAD?

    The verses regarding stoning are metaphorical. Jesus proved that in the new testament, when he prevented a woman from getting stoned. Jesus said that he will give his stone(the right to execute a person) to the first person who tells him he has never sinned. Jesus proved that only a person who has never sinned is allowed to literally stone another person, and since every human in history has sinned at least once, no human is allowed to literally stone another human. GOD is the only one that has never sinned, therefore GOD is the only person that can literally stone someone.

    If you can disprove my claim, provide evidence.

    Here is proof of GOD. The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Miracle of the Sun. It was witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people(believers and nonbelievers).

    Dr. Almeida Garrett (Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University) witness the event and stated the following:(The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.”)

    P.S., none of the people at the site of the miracle denied that it happened.

  26. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:25 am 26.the messenger said …

    7.alex, atheists have a long history of being murderers and genocidal maniacs. I would never put one in charge of a country, otherwise it would end up like north Korea or Nazi Germany.

  27. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:27 am 27.the messenger said …

    One or two sins will not make a person become a non christian. I stated the following (To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.).
    Christians and jews follow GOD’s laws to the best of their ability. Humans do not have the ability to overcome sin all the time, ok. When a Christian or a jew sins, they try to seek atonement for their actions. A non Christian or non jew does not try to seek atonement.

  28. on 22 Jan 2014 at 3:04 am 28.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The bible teaches love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, heart, integrity, and loyalty.”

    It also teaches bigotry, hate, murder, genocide, rape, slavery, polygamy and stoning.

    Do not try to slither away from the stoning verses, absolute is absolute.

    You also falsely compare atheists with men like hitler (who was a christian ironically), and Kin Jong Un.

    You also use the false concept of sin, which has no backing.

    Actually, you don’t back anything up.

  29. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:16 am 29.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, the bible does not teach bigotry, hate towards others, genocide, rape, slavery, or literal stoning.

    The bible states that we must love all people, even our enemies.Matthew 5:43-48

    It also says that murder(also genocide) is not allowed.Exodus 20:12-13.

    Many verses speak against rape. None of the passages teach or support rape.

    The stoning is not literal. That is proved in John 8:1-11.

    lastly, are you saying that Stalin is not an atheist? you know nothing about history do you.

  30. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:21 am 30.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, you must be high or drunk, or insane. Kin Jong Un is an atheist, you ridiculous, moronic, inane idiot.

  31. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:40 am 31.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, if we remove GOD from our society we will be left with nothing but murderous killer Atheist rulers, such as these following examples that lack generosity, compassion, kindness, and love.

    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  32. on 23 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 32.the messenger said …

    Slavery is allowed in the bible, but only in the most desperate situations. Also the laws dictate that slaves must be treated like human beings, not property. And they must be treated well, and fairly.

  33. on 23 Jan 2014 at 4:10 am 33.Angus and Alexis said …

    “28.Angus and Alexis, the bible does not teach bigotry, hate towards others, genocide, rape, slavery, or literal stoning.”

    Amazing, you lied, enjoy hell.
    Remember homosexuals? The group you are brain washed into being bigoted against?

    “atheists have a long history of being murderers and genocidal maniacs. I would never put one in charge of a country, otherwise it would end up like north Korea or Nazi Germany.”

    What about Sweden? Agnostic Atheist leader, and best healthcare in the world.

    Or Australia? No Nazi’s here.

    “28.Angus and Alexis, you must be high or drunk, or insane. Kin Jong Un is an atheist, you ridiculous, moronic, inane idiot.”

    Yes, i know Kim Jong Un is an atheist, what you fail to realize is that comparing him to Atheism itself is a false comparison.

    “When a Christian or a jew sins, they try to seek atonement for their actions. A non Christian or non jew does not try to seek atonement.”

    That would be because sin does not exist.
    It is a man made concept to scare people into religion.

    “(To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.).”

    And there are plenty of Christians out there who would use the redemption card. So who is correct?

    “Slavery is allowed in the bible, but only in the most desperate situations. Also the laws dictate that slaves must be treated like human beings, not property. And they must be treated well, and fairly.”

    What an utter lie.
    The bible states no such thing.
    It does however state that you are allowed to beat your slave, just the the brink of death, as to not kill him.
    You can do so as much as you want.

    “Angus and Alexis, if we remove GOD from our society we will be left with nothing but murderous killer Atheist rulers, such as these following examples that lack generosity, compassion, kindness, and love.”

    Alas, global percentages have proven that the less religion there is in a country, the less crime, rape, teenage pregnancies, and discrimination there is.

  34. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:22 pm 34.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, do you have any brains at all, you idiotic nincompoop.

    The bible does not contain a single verse that is hateful towards gay people.

    Leviticus 18 is not against gay people, ok. It applies to gay and straight people. lust causes people to become child molesters, hookers, rapists, and many other bad things. In order to reduce the amount of lust in our lives we must only use sex for reproduction, and not for lust. Only a man and a woman can reproduce by having sex, therefore people of the same gender are not allowed to have sex with each other.

  35. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 35.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, there is more than one leader in Sweden and Australia, and some of them are Christians. With out them those countries would be similar to stalin’s Russia. I am very certain of that.

  36. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:28 pm 36.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, I was not comparing kim jong un to atheism, I was comparing him to other atheists. That is a good comparison.

  37. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 37.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, a sin is a crime against GOD’s laws, and it does exist.

    It was not made up by humans, and it is not meant to scare people. GOD forgives us and loves us, therefore we should try to avoid sin but not because of fear but because of our love for GOD.

  38. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:22 am 38.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, there is no such thing as a redemption card. Redemption is a hard process. Getting forgiveness from GOD is an easy thing because he is very kind.

  39. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:32 am 39.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The bible does not contain a single verse that is hateful towards gay people.
    Leviticus 18 is not against gay people, ok. It applies to gay and straight people.”

    Messenger, heterosexual people, by definition, cannot have sex with the opposite sex.
    Thus is is bigoted against gays.

  40. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 40.Angus and Alexis said …

    “lust causes people to become child molesters, hookers, rapists, and many other bad things.”

    What a lie.
    List a source for this now.

    “In order to reduce the amount of lust in our lives we must only use sex for reproduction, and not for lust.”

    Sex has more purposes than reproduction, by doing what you suggest, you are going against nature.

    “Only a man and a woman can reproduce by having sex, therefore people of the same gender are not allowed to have sex with each other.”

    And that would be bigotry.
    And discrimination.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, there is more than one leader in Sweden and Australia, and some of them are Christians. With out them those countries would be similar to stalin’s Russia. I am very certain of that.”

    Perhaps you should think again.
    Ever since Australia got some theistic leaders (mainly Catholics, research Tony Abbot.) everything has gone to shit.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, I was not comparing kim jong un to atheism, I was comparing him to other atheists. That is a good comparison.”

    By comparing all atheists to Kim Jong, you are effectively comparing all of atheism to him.

    The only criteria of “atheist” is the lack of a belief in a deity.
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, a sin is a crime against GOD’s laws, and it does exist.”

    Prove it then.
    Otherwise it can be dismissed.

    “It was not made up by humans, and it is not meant to scare people. GOD forgives us and loves us, therefore we should try to avoid sin but not because of fear but because of our love for GOD.”

    So many claims, so little evidence.

  41. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 41.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, Jesus taught that masters of servants/slaves must be humble and treat their servants/slaves as equals and with respect and love in John 13:1-17.

  42. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:34 am 42.Angus and Alexis said …

    Also, messenger, it appears your comments piss off the spam detector, please work on that.

    It makes replying particularly hard.

  43. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:41 am 43.the messenger said …

    39.Angus and Alexis, you obviously do not know the definition of homosexual. The definition of Homosexual has nothing to do with who the person has or doesn’t have sex with.

    Here is he definition of homosexual.

  44. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:44 am 44.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, you idiot.

    The USSR had a very low percentage of religious people, and there was genocide, murder, rape, and discrimination.

    Come back when you get some common sense.

  45. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:49 am 45.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, are you saying that lust is not the motive of rapists, child molesters, and hookers?

    If lust is not their motive please tell me what it is.

    Go ahead, answer if you can.

  46. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 46.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, humans are naturally greedy and self centered. Sometimes natural desires are bad, even though they are natural tendencies.

  47. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:59 am 47.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, lust is bad, and we must reduce it by limiting sex to only reproduction.

    Only people of opposite genders can reproduce together, therefore sex with the same gender would only be for lust and is therefore bad.

  48. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:05 am 48.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, I said I was comparing kim jong un to SOME ATHEISTS, NOT ALL ATHEISTS.

    You apparently have the reading level of a preschooler. A preschooler that need a time out for his stupidity and arrogance.

  49. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:11 am 49.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, tell me, how did things go to S##t after Christians gained power there?

    Provide actual proof. Do not think to hard about it, you might strain you brain when you think to hard.

  50. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:14 am 50.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, it is written in the bible that satan made sin when he tempted adam and eve.

  51. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:17 am 51.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, here is proof that sin is a crime against GOD’s laws.

    Here is the oxford dictionary definition.

    (an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law)

    As you can see, sin is a crime against GOD’s laws.

  52. on 24 Jan 2014 at 5:49 am 52.Angus and Alexis said …

    You know what?

    Fuck off messenger.

    I tried to talk some sense into you.

    I tried to debate fairly.

    But all you do is shit on the chess board and run away.

  53. on 24 Jan 2014 at 3:27 pm 53.alex said …

    yeah, these dumbass theists love god/heaven so much that they wear seatbelts, take medicine, exercise and shit. you think god would hold it against them if they didn’t do all this shit and they happen to die?

    god: you’re going to hell, xtian motherfucker! even though you believed in me and i have forgiven your sins, you’re doomed to everlasting torture because you didn’t get your colonoscopy! har!

    messenger (god’s personal rep): but, but, hell, it’s really not permanent. you just go for a little bit….

  54. on 24 Jan 2014 at 7:08 pm 54.A said …

    Mess,

    Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed……AGAIN!…….as contradictory, hypocritical and just ignorant of all subject matters outside of Tulips! Lol!!

    I read a post or two and just laughed at his/her comedy of reasoning! Thanks Mess!

  55. on 24 Jan 2014 at 8:32 pm 55.alex said …

    “Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed”

    and this legitimizes allah?

  56. on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:29 am 56.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed……AGAIN!…….as contradictory, hypocritical and just ignorant of all subject matters outside of Tulips! Lol!!”

    The usernames I have used here are:
    Xcanthean Zeno
    Zeno
    Fluttershy
    Lesbian carwasher

    And finally, Angus and Alexis.

    So i do not see your point.

  57. on 26 Jan 2014 at 4:24 pm 57.alex said …

    allah shows up and proclaims:

    “all you xtians are wrong, coz i’m the real deal!”

    what would messenger do?

  58. on 26 Jan 2014 at 4:40 pm 58.Angus and Alexis said …

    “what would messenger do?”

    Suck his D*** for access?

  59. on 26 Jan 2014 at 5:30 pm 59.DPK said …

    Hahaha…. Messenger, no doubt, would argue with him that he was wrong, and that Jesus was on his way to kick his blasphemous ass!

  60. on 26 Jan 2014 at 10:18 pm 60.alex said …

    messenger would start acting immoral because his divine guidance would have been invalidated.

    without a brain, messenger would be lost. what a moron.

  61. on 27 Jan 2014 at 5:01 am 61.Angus and Alexis said …

    Ahh, right.

    I forgot that messenger would apparently start raping and murdering if a two thousand year old, out-dated, unscientific book written by illiterate goat herders, was found to be fictional.

  62. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:50 pm 62.the messenger said …

    58.Angus and Alexis, I had to take a break from your stupidity. It was polluting the air.

  63. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:52 pm 63.the messenger said …

    59.DPK, Jesus did not come to only condemn, but also to forgive.

  64. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:56 pm 64.the messenger said …

    60.alex, so far you have yet to actually disprove a single thing in the bible.

    You have no brain and no common sense either.

  65. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:59 pm 65.the messenger said …

    60.alex, without GOD there is no morality.

    You still haven’t disproven any part of the bible.

    You do not have a brain, and I am starting to think that you do not have a soul either, because you are so oblivious to the truth and are so hateful.

    I pray for you.

  66. on 27 Jan 2014 at 11:52 pm 66.alex said …

    “You have no brain and no common sense either.”

    wrong, motherfucker. i can easily be convinced if allah, yaweh, or budda were to show up and show their godness. you on the otherhand, can’t even contemplate that allah could exist, could you? your so called common sense says that rape can be paid off? you don’t even try to deny it or attempt to backtrack. if case readers forget, you believe that the rapist can get off by marrying the victim.

    “Jesus did not come to only condemn, but also to forgive.”

    wrong again. if jesus existed, there would overwhelming, preponderous evidence that he existed. instead moron motherfuckers, like you, make up bullshit proofs to shore up his existence.

    “You still haven’t disproven any part of the bible”

    wrongest yet. an omniscient god can’t create humans with a choice because the same bullshit god already knows the outcome. how the fuck is that even a choice? god doesn’t know? then omniscient he aint.

    “without GOD there is no morality”

    if THE Creator, who didn’t happen to be a god, were to show up, would you lose your morals?

    readers, this is old shit. messenger thinks that the burden of proof is on the non-believer. yeti nonbelievers must disprove bigfoot or otherwise bigfoot is real. ufos are real unless disproven.

    since allah and yahweh are both mutually exclusive, monotheistic gods, they cannot both exist. but because they cannot be disproven, then both gods must exist. how can this be?

    i need to have faith? in what? even if you hedge, you cannot believe in both. quit the damn searching, yearning shit. the answer is right in front of you. there are NO gods.

    morals you say? give me the morality test, you dumb motherfucker. ask me (or anybody else), what i would say if a rapist offered to marry the victim in lieu of a rape conviction.

    messenger, you a shit motherfucker.

  67. on 28 Jan 2014 at 12:35 am 67.the messenger said …

    66.alex, you are inane.

    Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD, but the muslim view of GOD is wrong.

    Buddha is not recognized as a GOD in Buddhism or any other religion, you nincompoop.

  68. on 28 Jan 2014 at 12:58 am 68.alex said …

    “Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD, but the muslim view of GOD is wrong.”

    ok, that reconciles both gods, but unfortunately, most xtians don’t believe your filthy shit. the muslim viewpoint is equally bullshitty as your belief.

    let’s see if you really believe your shit. post a muslim prayer and in it, refer to allah. it won’t prove it anything, but i just want to see.

  69. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:24 am 69.the messenger said …

    68.alex, I already said that islam is a misinterpretation of GOD and his message. Islam is a religion of hate, and most of it’s prayers are not holy, therefore I will never say a muslim prayer.

  70. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:36 am 70.the messenger said …

    66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Flavius Josephus(a jewish historian from 37 C.E. that wrote about Jesus.

    both of these people are non christians and yet they claim that Jesus does exist.

  71. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:40 am 71.the messenger said …

    66.alex, is it moral to cuss?

    There’s a moral test for you.

  72. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:51 am 72.the messenger said …

    66.alex, your an idiot.

    GOD can be all knowing and still give humans a choice.

    A dog owner knows that if his dog is hungry, he knows that the dog will eat a piece of dog food if he puts it in front of him. The owner knows in advance that the dog will eat the dog food. That does not mean that the owner is taking away the dog’s free will, it simply means that the owner is very fimiliar with the dog’s behavior and how it reacts to certain things.

    GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will. similar to the dog/owner story above.

  73. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:35 am 73.alex said …

    “therefore I will never say a muslim prayer.”

    ok, dumbass. don’t call it a muslim prayer. since you said allah and yahweh are the same, why don’t you just pray to allah in your xtian way?

    “66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.”

    oooh, a very significant person this hesus is and you overwhelm me with your two questionable proofs?

    “66.alex, is it moral to cuss?”

    no it’s not and i fail, just like you when you cuss. the difference between me and you is that i don’t use the bullshit original sin and even more bullshit redemption. i curse because it’s my reaction to morons like you. call it disdain. again, it’s not moral and i don’t need a book.

    “GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will.”

    this is proof that you’re a stoopid, dumbass motherfucker. how is it free will when the outcome is already known? oops, i forget. you’re a dumbass.

    need more? your rapist stance that the perp can get off by marrying the victim. you wonder why the rest of your homies don’t side with you on that?

    ciao, motherfucker.

  74. on 28 Jan 2014 at 5:00 am 74.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger.

    Understand that in order to use the bible, you must prove that the bible is factual.

    Otherwise every argument made from it can be discarded.

    So i ask of you, prove your claims, or concede.

  75. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:01 pm 75.DPK said …

    No messenger, the owner does not “know” the dog will eat the food. He thinks it most likely will, but if he ” knows” it that means certainty, and he cannot be certain he dog will eat the food, now, tomorrow, or next week. The dog may be sick and not interested, the dog may be distracted… “Squirrel”… IF owner in fact KNOWS that the dog will eat the good, then the dog in fact would be powerless to not do so, because in not doing so, he would invalidate the owners ” knowledge”.

    To you god and human example, if tomorrow I can choose to do “x” or “y”, and god knows that I will do x, is there ANY conceivable scenario in which I will do y? No, because IF I did y, then god did in fact not “know” I would do x.
    Therefore, I do not in fact have any possibility of choosing y. My free will is an illusion, and I am nothing more than an puppet making choices that have already been determined for me. I would then have no will, and no responsibility for my actions, since I have no choice in the matter.
    If, on the other hand, I am indeed free to choose, then god CANNOT know what I will do.

  76. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:36 pm 76.A said …

    Lol!!! Dippy and his simpleton analysis……sigh

    God knowing what you will inevitably choose does not invalidate your choice. You still have the choice to make.

    You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)

  77. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:44 pm 77.Angus and Alexis said …

    “You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)”

    If someone has foreknowledge, or simply knowledge of an event happening, the person related to the event has no choice in the matter.

    Thus IS a puppet.

  78. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:17 pm 78.freddies_dead said …

    72.the messenger said …

    66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Flavius Josephus(a jewish historian from 37 C.E. that wrote about Jesus.

    both of these people are non christians and yet they claim that Jesus does exist.

    The reference in Josephus is widely understood to be a forgery. The single paragraph that mentions Jesus didn’t show up until centuries after Josephus died and was so badly constructed that almost all scholars agree it was bullshit.

    The validity of the writings attributed to Tacitus is similarly flimsy. The originals were written in the 2nd century but none of the original documents exist – they’re all copies of copies of copies. None of the early Christian writers such as Eusebius and Tertullian mention the passage from Tacitus and the wording used is almost certainly from a later time.

    Your “proof” is nothing but early Christian forgery.

  79. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:22 pm 79.freddies_dead said …

    78.A said …

    Lol!!! Dippy and his simpleton analysis……sigh

    God knowing what you will inevitably choose does not invalidate your choice. You still have the choice to make.

    You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)

    Omniscience by itself does not force your hand, the choice may very well be free despite the omniscient entity already knowing what choice you will make.

    So no, it’s not God’s foreknowledge that condemns you to be a mere puppet. It’s the fact that God has a plan which does that. On the Christian worldview God has a plan to bring about His own glory. The reason God knows exactly what you will do is because that’s what He planned you would do and because He’s God you have no choice but to comply. There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent.

  80. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:31 pm 80.freddies_dead said …

    79.Angus and Alexis said …

    “You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)”

    If someone has foreknowledge, or simply knowledge of an event happening, the person related to the event has no choice in the matter.

    Thus IS a puppet.

    Not quite. That an omniscient entity knows what choice you will make isn’t necessarily what causes you to make that choice. It’s quite possible that you’re making that choice freely and the omniscient entity simply knows ahead of time what free choice you will make. I know it’s not entirely intuitive but it does actually make sense when you really think about it.

    The kicker here of course is that the omniscient entity – the Christian God – is said to have a plan.

    The Christian God is said to have planned everything to bring about His glory – and it’s that plan that pisses all over the concept of free will. You cannot possible do something that contradicts the will of the Christian God and He wills that you carry out His plan. Do what you’re told puppet. No matter that His plan for you includes an eternity of suffering, it’s the only way that an omnimax deity can bring about their glory.

    Lol, such absurdity … but exactly what we expect from a worldview that rests on the concept that “wishing makes it so”.

  81. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:54 pm 81.Angus and Alexis said …

    “That an omniscient entity knows what choice you will make isn’t necessarily what causes you to make that choice. It’s quite possible that you’re making that choice freely and the omniscient entity simply knows ahead of time what free choice you will make.”

    Having absolute knowledge of the future implies that it is set in stone, or, to rename it, planned.

    Thus having knowledge of the future makes no choice in the matter.

  82. on 28 Jan 2014 at 5:34 pm 82.A said …

    “There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent”

    Well spoken…..well stated but again completely wrong. An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice……..which is WHY the deity is omnipotent! Lol!!

    Seriously!, you think an omnipotent can’t follow through on a plan regardless of the choice of a man?

    The liberal part of atheists will not allow them to see an omnipotent being who does not strong-arm his creation into obedience. That’s understandable.

  83. on 28 Jan 2014 at 7:29 pm 83.DPK said …

    Haha.. Spoken like the completely brain washed idiot you are.
    If your omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will, say, murder you by bludgeoning you with a sack of bibles… Is there in fact any possible scenario in which I do not bludgeon you with the bibles?
    If there is, then your gods perfect knowledge is incorrect… Fail.
    If there is not, then I have no choice in the matter but to do the deed… Also fail.

    Sorry A, you can try your Jedi mind tricks on the weak minded, but you argument is simply bullshit. Lol

  84. on 28 Jan 2014 at 8:03 pm 84.alex said …

    “An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice”

    so basically he don’t know shit… fucking double talk bullshit. see, if you say god doesn’t know what is to pass, it’s more believable, doesn’t it, but then it wouldn’t be godlike, would it?

  85. on 28 Jan 2014 at 8:09 pm 85.DPK said …

    “An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice”

    Uh.. No.
    If the omnipotent being knows what will occur, you cannot do anything but what he either knows, or has determined. No way around it, double talk not withstanding. If your actions are predetermined, the idea of free will is only an illusion.
    If god knows I will do x, even though it may seem to me I can do y, I in fact cannot.

    Sorry A, epic fail again. Give up.

  86. on 28 Jan 2014 at 9:14 pm 86.A said …

    Dippy,

    Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken. This is obviously above your understanding. You will have to be able to think above a child-later like level.

  87. on 28 Jan 2014 at 9:19 pm 87.alex said …

    “Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken.”

    well, good for you, you dumb motherfucker. you think freddy is our messenger? the only common atheist denominator is our nonbelief. if freddy is a republican, you think all atheists are?

    dumbass.

  88. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:23 pm 88.the messenger said …

    73.alex, “just like you when you cuss”.

    When have I cussed on this site?

    You idiot.

  89. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 89.the messenger said …

    73.alex, how are those proofs questionable?

    The majority of historians accept the evidence that I presented, why don’t you?

  90. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:27 pm 90.the messenger said …

    73.alex, if a person does something bad he or she should try to redeem themselves.

    What is so wrong about that?

  91. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 91.the messenger said …

    73.alex, here is the definition of free will.

    (the ability to act at one’s own discretion.)

    GOD knows our decisions before we make them because he is highly familiar with us.

    Regardless of that, we still choose, because GOD is not forcing us to do anything, he simply concludes what our decisions will be due to his knowledge of us and how we react to certain things.

  92. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:35 pm 92.the messenger said …

    74.Angus and Alexis, if GOD exists then so does the bible, and I have already given you proof many times.

  93. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:38 pm 93.the messenger said …

    75.DPK, GOD is so familiar with all of our details that he already knows, without a doubt, how we will react to a certain thing and therefore he knows what decisions will be during a certain situation.

  94. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:40 pm 94.alex said …

    “When have I cussed on this site?”

    this is why you’re the blog shitfuck. you formulated the question “is it moral to curse?”. regardless whether you curse or not, it would be immoral for anyone (atheist or xtian or muslim or bushman included) to curse. given that, your biblical morality test has failed, you dumbass.

    “The majority of historians accept the evidence that I presented, why don’t you?”

    because it’s bullshit. just because you say that the majority do, it’s not true. care to prove it, you dumb motherfucker? just like the weapons of mass destruction, the onus is on the person that makes the assertion. just like leprechauns, your hesus is a figment, unless of course you got proof?seeing the image of hesus on a dog’s ass doesn’t count.

    “if a person does something bad he or she should try to redeem themselves.
    What is so wrong about that?”

    redeem themselves using a bullshit redeemer that’s what. go fuck yourself and after you’re done, go pray, you asshole.

  95. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:43 pm 95.alex said …

    “Regardless of that, we still choose, because GOD is not forcing us to do anything, he simply concludes what our decisions will be due to his knowledge of us and how we react to certain things.”

    same concept as to why god sometimes answers prayers and sometimes not. it’s bullshit double talk.

    god gave us free will to fly with wings coming out of our ass, but we choose not too? what a crock. go fuck yourself, mess motherfucker.

  96. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:02 am 96.the messenger said …

    94.alex, I thought that you were claiming that I had cussed.

    You are an idiot. and still cussing too.

  97. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:06 am 97.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, are you nuts? The majority of historians do accept Tacitus’s record of Jesus.

    Joshepheus’s record is about half and half. Some believe that it is true and some do not.

    You are insane.

  98. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:11 am 98.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, tell me, how do you know that Tacitus’s record wording is from another time period?

    I see not difference in the wording.

  99. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:21 am 99.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, Louis Feldman( the non Christian biblical scholar ) stated that “few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus’ reference to Jesus”

    You lied about most scholars opposing it.

  100. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 100.the messenger said …

    94.alex, the bible states that if we hurt or damage a person’s property or steal we must redeem our selves by paying them back fully for the damages.

    If we are bad to a person, we must redeem our selves by apologizing and asking that person and GOD for forgiveness. The bible says that.

    Tell me, what is wrong about that? P.S., what is the redeemer you are referring to? Redemption is earned through hard work, it is not something that you can get from a pass or a certain phrase.

  101. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:18 am 101.alex said …

    “what is the redeemer you are referring to?”

    you are a fucking, shitass troll. the redeemer is the emmer with the crimson hue, you clueless fuck.

  102. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:39 am 102.the messenger said …

    101.alex, emmer is a kind of weat, and crimson is a silver color. So silver weat is a redeemer?

    ARE YOU BRAINLESS?

  103. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:25 am 103.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, you have never posted valid proof of god.

    You may think it is valid, other theists may agree.

    But the fact still stands that it is not valid according to reality.

    And again, you are yet to prove that the bible is factual.

    Proving that a god exists does not prove the bible.

    The god could be associated to islam, hinduism, pastafarianism, or any other religion.

  104. on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:59 am 104.freddies_dead said …

    83.Angus and Alexis said …

    Having absolute knowledge of the future implies that it is set in stone, or, to rename it, planned.

    Thus having knowledge of the future makes no choice in the matter.

    Having knowledge of the future (either absolute or not) does not mean that the one who knows planned that future. It is possible that an entity could know what you’re going to do but not be the cause of your choice. It’s true you won’t do anything other than what they know but it’s not their knowing that’s causing you to make that choice.

    Causation is the issue here. Knowing what you will choose isn’t the same as causing you to make that choice. That’s why God’s plan is important. It’s that plan that is the cause of your choice. It’s that plan that makes you a robot. It’s that plan that shows the Christian concepts of ‘sin’ and ‘free-will’ are absurdities.

  105. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:00 pm 105.freddies_dead said …

    84.A said …

    “There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent”

    Well spoken…..well stated but again completely wrong.

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God? I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do? This is what you are claiming here and, man, apart from being nonsense, it makes your God look particularly weak.

    An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice……

    How? If the omnipotent being plans that I will do something and it’s omniscience means it knows that I will do it, just how can I do something different?

    ..which is WHY the deity is omnipotent! Lol!!

    Seriously!, you think an omnipotent can’t follow through on a plan regardless of the choice of a man?

    This is the point. There is no choice. Your God has the plan and His omnipotence means I can’t do anything other than what He knows I will do. The mental gymnastics you’re having to go through here to try and cram free-will into your worldview are hilarious.

    The liberal part of atheists will not allow them to see an omnipotent being who does not strong-arm his creation into obedience. That’s understandable.

    No it’s plain old logic that shows that you can’t do something other than what an omnipotent and omniscient being has planned, but it’s understandable that you don’t recognise this as your grasp on logic is tenuous at best.

  106. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:01 pm 106.freddies_dead said …

    88.A said …

    Dippy,

    Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken.

    Lol, and you disagreed with what I said.

    This is obviously above your understanding. You will have to be able to think above a child-later like level.

    This is the pot calling the kettle black.

  107. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:01 pm 107.freddies_dead said …

    99.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, are you nuts? The majority of historians do accept Tacitus’s record of Jesus.

    No they don’t.

    Joshepheus’s record is about half and half. Some believe that it is true and some do not.

    Liar. Pretty much everyone accepts that it’s a blatant forgery. No-one with any credibility would claim otherwise.

    You are insane.

    Coming from you I’ll take that as a compliment.

  108. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:02 pm 108.freddies_dead said …

    100.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, tell me, how do you know that Tacitus’s record wording is from another time period?

    Because the terminology he used doesn’t fit with the time period it is alleged to have been written.

    I see not difference in the wording.

    Of course you don’t because you’re an idiot.

  109. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:03 pm 109.freddies_dead said …

    101.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, Louis Feldman( the non Christian biblical scholar ) stated that “few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus’ reference to Jesus”

    The Jewish scholar Louis Feldman you say? Because he has no vested interest in saying Jesus existed. Lol. Earl Doherty and Dorothy Murdock disagree.

    You lied about most scholars opposing it.

    Not really, no.

  110. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:05 pm 110.freddies_dead said …

    104.the messenger said …

    …crimson is a silver color…

    Crimson is what now? And you have the nerve to call others “brainless”?

  111. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:45 pm 111.DPK said …

    “Having knowledge of the future (either absolute or not) does not mean that the one who knows planned that future. It is possible that an entity could know what you’re going to do but not be the cause of your choice. ”

    This is true, but the end result is the same. Foerknowledge implies certainty, certainity negates any other options. It could be that Zeus determined that tomorrow I will do action Y, and Yahweh only “knows” it through his omniscience. No matter, I cannot choose X instead because the Yahweh would be wrong, which is impossible.

    A considers this childlike reasoning, and his adult, mature reasoning is “because it’s magic”. Lol. Here is a mockery of my critical thinking skills from an individual who believes there is an invisible man who lives in the sky, who listens to his thoughts, and who is going to grant him an eternal life in a magical kingdom.
    The irony is mind boggling.

  112. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:55 pm 112.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddies_dead said…
    “Causation is the issue here. Knowing what you will choose isn’t the same as causing you to make that choice.”

    I must disagree, both have the same result, its just that one is an illusion of choice, and the other is simply no choice.

    If i know everything, and lets say for example, you will have pancakes tomorrow, you have no choice in the matter.

    Because I know what will happen, it is set in stone, and nothing you can do will stop that from happening, even if i told you not to eat pancakes.

    See the illusion of choice?

  113. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:00 pm 113.A said …

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God?”

    Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!

    ” I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do?”

    No!,that’s called omniscience silly! Stay with me here. God is not an atheist on a power trip. He will allow you to make bad chooses but still have the foreknowledge you will make them. Really a simple concept.

    The conspiracy theorist so tickle me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain? Three were put to death and one was exiled. Yes! I can see why they would make Jesus up! lol!!!!!!

  114. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:51 pm 114.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!”

    You moron, if one goes against the will of an omnipotent being, then the being is no longer omnipotent.

  115. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:08 pm 115.DPK said …

    And if one is able to do something that an omniscient being already knows you will do, then that being is not omniscient.
    I believe A has become so open minded in regards to his magical god that his brains have fallen out.

    Answer the simple queston A… If your god knows that tomorrow I will do “x”, is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”? Yes, or no?

  116. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:34 pm 116.A said …

    “if one is able to do something that an omniscient being already knows you will do, then that being is not omniscient.”

    What??

    lol!!!!!! Wow! You guys don’t even try to hide your ignorance.

    ok….schools in session…..

    If an omnipotent being decides to give you free will an make your own choice has he acted in accordance with his omniscience and omnipotence?

    hint…..

    Yes

    He knows what you will choose.
    He gives you the free will to choose.

    Notice above the action words known as verbs taken by the deity exercising authority.

    lol!!!!!!!!!

  117. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:44 pm 117.freddies_dead said …

    113.DPK said …

    114.Angus and Alexis said …

    I get your points. The end result, i.e. the choice that you make, is the same, but it’s the cause, not the result, that is the issue here IMO.

    Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not? Only if the God has a plan do you actually have no choice. If the omniscient entity hasn’t foreordained that you will do something the fact that you go ahead and do what it knows you’ll do isn’t the fault of the omniscient entity – it’s something else that has caused you to make that choice.

    Of course this is all just semantics really. Christians aren’t proposing a God who is simply omniscient and hasn’t planned everything in advance. Oh no, their God has a plan and it is that plan that totally removes free-will from the equation. Which makes it all the more amusing when they claim that their God can give them free-will.

  118. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:57 pm 118.freddies_dead said …

    115.A said …

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God?”

    Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!

    What’s silly here is your claim. If I can go against God’s will then His will isn’t absolute. Wave goodbye to omnipotence.

    ” I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do?”

    No!,that’s called omniscience silly!

    Apparently I can do something God doesn’t want me to do yet he’s already planned for me to do it. Such nonsense is silly but not in the way A thinks.

    Stay with me here.

    I’d rather not, here there be only your absurdities.

    God is not an atheist on a power trip.

    I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that He is.

    He will allow you to make bad chooses but still have the foreknowledge you will make them.

    What happened to God’s plan? Are you saying I can go ahead and do stuff that isn’t in God’s plan? Man your God is a lame arsed wuss.

    Really a simple concept.

    And yet you’ve still managed to mangle it beyond all recognition.

    The conspiracy theorist so tickle me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain? Three were put to death and one was exiled. Yes! I can see why they would make Jesus up! lol!!!!!!

    None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.

  119. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:10 pm 119.A said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Whoooo! Love the atheist conspiracy theorists!

    Thanks for the great laugh Fred.

  120. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:20 pm 120.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not?”

    Yes, you are being forced.
    Not by a being, but by fate.

    There is no difference, both are being forced by some manner of process.

  121. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:22 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    121.A said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Whoooo! Love the atheist conspiracy theorists!

    Thanks for the great laugh Fred.

    I’m glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.

  122. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:36 pm 122.freddies_dead said …

    122.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not?”

    Yes, you are being forced.
    Not by a being, but by fate.

    There is no difference, both are being forced by some manner of process.

    This just throws up a number of questions:

    How is fate “forcing” you in this context?
    If there’s no agent then are you talking about determinism?
    Do you believe free-will is possible or not?
    If you do can you give some scenarios in which it is possible?

  123. on 29 Jan 2014 at 5:23 pm 123.A said …

    ” glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.”

    I did, nearly choked on my coffee laughing…..

    Fred offers an atheist truth claim? Great! Let see the proof of your truth claim using the scientific method.

    Prediction: all Fred will offer is atheist conspiracy theories……..

    Maybe Agnus will misuse omniscient again which will be funny.????

  124. on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:02 pm 124.DPK said …

    Like a broken record, “a” once again refuses to answer even the simplist of questions because it will expose his utter lunacy. Let’s try again. This isn’t a tough one…
    “If your god knows that tomorrow I will do “x”, is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”? Yes, or no?”

  125. on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:29 pm 125.alex said …

    “is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”?”

    nope. just like prayer results, it’s preordained. everything that unfolds has been master planned. that’s why you can pray and be happy with any result. oops, there goes the free willy.

  126. on 29 Jan 2014 at 8:27 pm 126.A said …

    You asked a question Dippy? Where? You mean the one you just asked? Lol!!!!

    I on the other hand did ask one and Freddie again has run from it……..

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!

    Quickly now, my time is limited.

  127. on 29 Jan 2014 at 8:57 pm 127.DPK said …

    Is that a yes, or a no? Your evasive is so tiresome.
    Once again, assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”, is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”?

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

  128. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:08 pm 128.freddies_dead said …

    123.A said …

    ” glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.”

    I did, nearly choked on my coffee laughing…..

    Fred offers an atheist truth claim? Great! Let see the proof of your truth claim using the scientific method.

    Which of your bizarro versions of the scientific method am I supposed to use?

    Prediction: all Fred will offer is atheist conspiracy theories……..

    Cause all the historical scholars are atheists. Lol. It’s only you that thinks this is some sort of conspiracy A and yet you offer no evidence for you claims. Any chance you’ll be complying with your own demand and presenting the proof of your conspiracy claim using the scientific method?

    This paragraph also speaks volumes about what’s going to happen if we carry on with this pathetic diversion. I’m going to point out the evidence the scholars have gathered and analysed to reach the conclusions they came to and A’s going to:

    a) claim that it doesn’t fit whichever bizarro version of the scientific method he’s using this week
    and
    b) dismiss the evidence out of hand without any reasons because he’s got no positive evidence of his own.

    I tell you what A, if you’ve got a problem with the conclusions of the scholars take it up with them.

    Now back to the original discussion i.e. the logical incoherence of claiming free will whilst also claiming that an omnimax deity with a plan for everything exists.

    Go on A let’s have your argument as to how free will is possible when an omnipotent, omniscient deity has foreordained all that will come to pass?

    126.A said …

    I on the other hand did ask one and Freddie again has run from it……..

    Lol, the only one who doesn’t answer questions here is you A. We know why of course, it’s because you don’t have a coherent answer.

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!

    Lol, here we go. Making it a condition that DPK answers a question asked of someone else before you’ll answer his question only to then avoid the question further by throwing in another diversion.

    Quickly now, my time is limited.

    And the set up to do exactly what he accuses others of doing … run away.

  129. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:15 pm 129.freddies_dead said …

    129.DPK said …

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

    It’s because he knows that he’s fucked whichever answer he goes for.

    If he chooses ‘yes’ he’ll be utterly unable to come up with a coherent scenario in which it’s possible.

    Whereas if he admits that it’s ‘no’ it demonstrates another contradiction in the Bible i.e. The Bible claims free will is possible whilst also claiming attributes for it’s God which preclude any possibility of free will.

  130. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 130.A said …

    “Cause all the historical scholars are atheists. Lol. It’s only you that thinks this is some sort of conspiracy”

    ROTFL!!! I must say my predictions are right on. Not one shred of evidence historically or scientifically to back Freddie Boy’s conspiracy claim.

    Dippy,

    Can you save Freddie? Can you provide all this proof to support his conspiracy theory?

    Still can’t define this hypothetical x or y? In just a bit I will be making a CHOICE where to eat supper. You must be sad not having a choice….lol!!!

  131. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:48 pm 131.freddies_dead said …

    132.A said …

    ROTFL!!! I must say my predictions are right on. Not one shred of evidence historically or scientifically to back Freddie Boy’s conspiracy claim.

    Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists.

    And because he can’t answer DPK’s question he carries on trying to push this bullshit conspiracy diversion on to him.

    And also as noted he has another tactic in his desperate attempt to avoid answering DPK’s question, he keeps on with his utterly unnecessary diversion.

    So let’s see. Let’s make DPK’s hypothetical less hypothetical.

    Assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to go fishing (do “x”) instead of going to work (“y”), is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose to go to work (“y”)?

    There you go A, now answer it.

  132. on 30 Jan 2014 at 12:58 am 132.the messenger said …

    103.Angus and Alexis, so 100,000 witnesses all at the same time and many eye witness accounts are not valid proof?

    To be honest I do not see how that cannot be valid proof, so please tell me, what do you consider to be valid proof?

  133. on 30 Jan 2014 at 1:02 am 133.the messenger said …

    103.Angus and Alexis, the miracle was witnessed by Catholics, and catholic holy people were seen there(such as mary), therefore this could not have been a pagan or Islamic miracle.

  134. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:11 am 134.A said …

    “Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists”

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I agree, no conspiracy exists. Therefore your claim has been shot down and you now admit it.

    Here is your lesson. Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate and I will not need to embarrass you. You bring it on yourself silly Freddie.

    Now, you can go fishing or go go work tomorrow. Make the choice it’s OK…..God has given you a free will. But who will serve the fries if you go fish??? Lol!

    However, God does know what you will do.

  135. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:16 am 135.alex said …

    “100,000 witnesses”

    ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?

  136. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:30 am 136.alex said …

    “Here is your lesson. Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate…”

    you’re a fucking idiot. you’re not the final arbiter. you don’t get to set the rules. no matter what is said in here, you can always dispute it.

    i can’t prove gravity, but it’s real and testable. you’re going to ask me to recite the test?

    what is the test for your god? name a single repeatable test for your god. none?

    you’re an asshole. your assertion that an all knowing god gives you free will is a total contradiction. i don’t have to prove it anymore than i have to prove that a round cube doesn’t exist.

    fuckhead.

  137. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:10 am 137.DPK said …

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!
    Quickly now, my time is limited.

    Then you should stop wasting it and answer the question. “X” is some action that I can choose to do or not. What difference does it make what it is? Does your god only have perfect foreknowledge of certain events, but not others? How strange.
    Oh, wait, I get it, it’s a stall so you can try to change the subject! How clever of you… You’ve never tried that tactic before… Lol!

  138. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:07 am 138.Angus and Alexis said …

    “To be honest I do not see how that cannot be valid proof, so please tell me, what do you consider to be valid proof?”

    What is proof?
    A series of evidence, or arguments, that validates the truth of something.

    100 thousand people seeing the same thing proves squat, other than the “apparent” fact that they saw the same thing, the rest would fall to occam’s razor.

    Freddies_Dead said…
    “How is fate “forcing” you in this context?”

    Not that i believe in fate, but if there were an all knowing being, it would have to exist.

    Anyway, as i have said before, fate indicates that nothing can ever stop you from doing what the fate says.

    Thus it would force you.

    “If there’s no agent then are you talking about determinism?”

    The agent would be the all knowing being that sets the entire future in stone.

    “Do you believe free-will is possible or not?”

    Now? Of course i do.
    In the scenario that there is an all knowing being?
    There would be an illusion of free-will.

    “If you do can you give some scenarios in which it is possible?”

    In the scenario, there would be no actual free-will.

  139. on 30 Jan 2014 at 12:21 pm 139.alex said …

    “fate indicates that nothing can ever stop you from doing what the fate says.”

    that’s why fate is bullshit. you can’t test it, therefore you must conclude it’s crap.

    same as the omnipotent god. can god create something more omnipotent than himself? fuck no.

  140. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:31 pm 140.Angus and Alexis said …

    alex said…
    “that’s why fate is bullshit. you can’t test it, therefore you must conclude it’s crap.”

    Agreed.

    “same as the omnipotent god. can god create something more omnipotent than himself? fuck no.”

    What i find deeply hilarious is how “A” knows little of the definitions of many words.

  141. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:19 pm 141.A said …

    Ok, I want to remind our readers of the claim made by Freddie of which has has yet to defend.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear. Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”. So by who? We get no answer and now he has ran. Can anyone back his position or are we dealing with just one of many lies by atheists?

  142. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:27 pm 142.DPK said …

    “What i find deeply hilarious is how “A” knows little of the definitions of many words”

    Common among theists is the necessity to redefine the meanings of words in order to try and not contradict themselves in their claims or shatter their house of cards their faith is built on. Case in point is messengers definition of “eternity”. Now “A” seems to imply that omniscience depends on the definition of what specific type of knowledge is being considered. Previously he has told us that slavery is really only long term employment, and messenger has told us that murder depends on who is being murdered. For example, killing a “bad” person with premeditation and intent isn’t murder, because that person is bad.
    It’s amusing to witness the torturous mental processes they must endure to maintain their ridiculous delusions.

  143. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:48 pm 143.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yeah…I know…

  144. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:27 pm 144.alex said …

    “Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear. Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”.”

    who cares, it’s a sideshow diversion. you want me to call him names? fine, done.

    now about your all knowing god and free choice, it’s crap. end of story.

  145. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:37 pm 145.Angus and Alexis said …

    If i recall correctly, A has acknowledged that he will never reveal evidence.

    That leaves us left with Messenger, who is as useless as a brick wall when it comes to proof…

  146. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:40 pm 146.freddies_dead said …

    136.A said …

    “Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists”

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I agree, no conspiracy exists.

    Then why did you make the claim that one did?

    Therefore your claim has been shot down and you now admit it.

    My claim – based on the conclusions of historical scholars – was that the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries. That still stands.

    Here is your lesson.

    No-one needs lessons from you A, you’re an idiot.

    Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate and I will not need to embarrass you.

    You’ve embarrassed no-one but yourself as usual.

    You bring it on yourself silly Freddie.

    Another autobiographical statement from A.

    Now, you can go fishing or go go work tomorrow. Make the choice it’s OK…..God has given you a free will.

    A claim you will not (because you can not) substantiate.

    But who will serve the fries if you go fish??? Lol!

    You pathetic child.

    However, God does know what you will do.

    Substantiate the claim that your God exists and He knows what I will do.

  147. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:08 pm 147.freddies_dead said …

    143.A said …

    Ok, I want to remind our readers of the claim made by Freddie of which has has yet to defend.

    The claim is defended by the historical scholars who have studied the ancient manuscripts and come to that conclusion. As I’ve already said, if you have a problem with that take it up with them.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear.

    The reason the claim is clear is because there’s nothing wrong with my sentence construction.

    Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”.

    Who contends? And you have the nerve to question my grammar. Muphry’s Law in action.

    So by who?

    What? You want names? No one knows the true names. The Gospels themselves were written anonymously – none of them name their author(s). The names we know today were attached to them later – some time in the 2nd century. There’s not enough evidence to support the attribution of any of the gospels to the 4 named as authors and evidence to suggest that those so named were highly unlikely to have been the actual authors.

    We get no answer and now he has ran.

    Lol, I went to bed – it was nearly 11:00pm here in England when I wrote my last post yesterday.

    Can anyone back his position or are we dealing with just one of many lies by atheists?

    I’ve backed my position, whereas you never do and the only one demonstrated to be a liar on here is you A.

    Now. You claim that an omniscient God exists, that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and yet you also claim that free will still exists. Make your argument to substantiate this claim.

  148. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:14 pm 148.A said …

    Oh freddie-boy! You have really become bold in your lying. Let me repost your claim.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Now you try to claim all you stated was:

    “the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries.”

    Oh what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive!

    lol!!!!

    care to retract your first claim or do you lack the integrity?

  149. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:32 pm 149.freddies_dead said …

    150.A said …

    Oh freddie-boy! You have really become bold in your lying. Let me repost your claim.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Now you try to claim all you stated was:

    “the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries.”

    Oh what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive!

    lol!!!!

    Oh dear A. I see your reading for comprehension isn’t up to the task. Go back and re-read what I wrote in posts 148 & 149. You’ll see I’ve made and defended 2 claims.

    Claim 1 is regarding the authenticity of the passages in Josephus and Tacitus i.e. they’re not authentic.

    Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect.

    It’s not my fault that you can’t keep those 2 claims straight.

    care to retract your first claim or do you lack the integrity?

    I don’t need to retract either claim and you really shouldn’t question anyone else’s integrity when you have none of your own.

    Now. You claim that an omniscient God exists, that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and yet you also claim that free will still exists. Make your argument to substantiate this claim. First demonstrate the existence of your God. Then show that He is omniscient. Then you can show that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and, finally, you can show us how free will is possible in light of an omniscient, omnipotent deity with a plan.

  150. on 30 Jan 2014 at 6:05 pm 150.freddies_dead said …

    To preempt any more of A’s pathetic attempts to claim that I’ve “run away”, I’ll note that it’s early evening here now and I have a real life to live so it’s unlikely I’ll be responding to any more of his drivel until tomorrow.

  151. on 30 Jan 2014 at 7:16 pm 151.A said …

    “Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect”

    Run Freddie run. You are doubling down on your claim and sill have provided 0, zero, nada evidence to support. lol!!!!!!!

    What makes there authorship “almost certainly incorrect”? Your imagination? Lol!!!!!

    By now after a google search you have found you have no leg to stand on. Thus you continue to just state your silly opinion.

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1. You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    Run! Freddie! Run! lol!!!!

  152. on 30 Jan 2014 at 9:40 pm 152.Bazza said …

    A – You don’t seem to up to date on knowledge of biblical scholarship or the evidence for and against the historicity of the bible.

    (1)Firstly – the claimed Josephus paragraph has a hugely obvious point in it that is often over looked by Christians but that renders it painfully obviously forged. Josephus was Jewish but the supposed passage in question claims that Jesus was the messiah and that he was resurrected. If that were the case Josephus would have been a Christian and not Jewish.

    Now some scholars have tried to claim that parts of his writings on Jesus were authentic. Problem is that none agree which bits are real and which bits are fake.

    Further he was writing more than half a century after Jesus supposedly lived and died… thing is that we’ve got proof positive that a messianic figure can be woven wholly from fabrication in that sort of length of time.

    The cult of John Frum in Vanuatu is strong evidence of that occurring within recent and well observed history.

    (2)As for Tacitus – he was writing even more remotely from the supposed events, nearly a whole century had passed since Jesus was allegedly crucified.

    Further he seems to simply report, as if it were fact, the views of the second century Christians of his day. It’s nothing more than hearsay and wouldn’t be evidence that could be used in a court, let alone one charged with finding the ultimate cause of existence.

    Further not a single copy of Tacitus’ Annals survived antiquity – all surviving copies come from translations done at Abbeys by Benedictine monks.

    Further the earliest surviving documents show clear evidence of alteration when viewed using UV.

    Further there are many inconsistencies in this account – Herod is referred to as a procurator when it’s known from primary sources that his rank was prefect.

    (3) There are other sources but all of them have this same problem: Not one of them is a prime source, all of them are written long after the alleged events in question based on second hand (at least, more likely at least third or fourth hand) information gathered from unknown sources. Such sources may well have been early Christians themselves who would of course have reported what they believed as fact.

    (4) Most of those sources are in books that only survived due to translation and copying by members of the Church – it is likely that this process is open to deliberate manipulation or at the very least selectivity. Do you think the church would be likely to preserve a document which was damning in it’s evidence against the existence of Jesus through either a source which MUST have known of those events if they were true or one that perhaps reported that such events had not occurred but were merely the creation of a cult?

    (5) When it comes to the Gospels we have two main divisions in the ones mentioned. Firstly we have Matthew, Mark and Luke – the Synoptic gospels.

    These Gospels share many similarities… proof that they describe the same events, you might say?

    The problem with that is that the similarities seem to largely derive because all three of them seem to have come from the same, earlier, source or set of sources and to have bits directly and indirectly shared between them.

    Matthew and Luke seem to have had an additional shared source to Mark but the point here is that serious biblical scholars not only don’t believe that these were written by the claimed writers but that in fact they all stem from the same set of earlier documents – they are not three separate accounts but rather three versions of the same one. There’s a real trinity for you.

    (6) John is clearly from a separate source and in fact contradicts the other three gospels in many places. It also appears to have been written later than the others.

    (7) Now there is another issue – none of the Gospels so far discovered dates back to earlier than the fourth century, way, way too late for it to have been written by anyone who was in any way able to observe events at the time they describe. Fragments exist from earlier but again none of them date back far enough. The general Christian solution has been to assign early dates to their writing without evidence to back it up. However the early Christian church itself makes no mention of the gospels whatsoever until after 150 CE (AD if you prefer). The earliest fragment of any sort is from 125 CE and only contains 13 words of one verse. The next earliest is a slightly larger fragment dating between 175-225 CE The names of the supposed authors and the idea they wrote the gospels didn’t come around until the second and in some cases the third century.

    Furthermore bits strongly appear to have been added later on – the Gospel of Mark is found with two different version of the ending of it, the part describing the alleged resurrection of Christ. Originally it finished at 16:8 with the women fleeing the empty tomb – not with Jesus coming back to life but merely his body having vanished from the tomb. Some claim that this was added early on, perhaps the second century but writers as late as the fourth and fifth century didn’t have knowledge of this expanded ending.

    (7) All these problems aside, we’ll turn to the question of authorship starting with Mark.

    Mark is traditionally supposed to have been written by John Mark, an associate of the apostle Peter. Problems with this abound – starting with the fact that John Mark is known to have been a Palestinian Jew rather than a Christian. Further this would clearly be hearsay since he was allegedly writing Peter’s memoirs long after the events he’s supposedly describing. Finally there are errors in the gospel of Mark in terms of Palestinian geography and customs that make the idea of a Palestinian Jew writing this work completely untenable.

    Modern linguistic scholarship suggests that there are 2 different authors of Mark – an earlier one and a later one. It seems that the earlier one did not in fact reference the resurrection of Jesus at all.

    Next we turn to Matthew. This is supposed to have been written by ‘Matthew the tax collector’ but this is a story that crops up much later on and not much is know about this alleged writer at all.

    Modern linguistic scholarship suggests that there were in fact three sources here – an earlier document referred to as Q, a Jewish writer who wrote in Greek rather than Hebrew and the non-mainstream, non-pauline “church community” of which he was a part. It is likely that the Q document was translated from Hebrew in small fragments but that large amounts of this Gospel were originally written in Greek by the unknown author in the late first to early second century CE. This of course places it far too late be written by an eyewitness to any of the events of the alleged life of Christ and the translated fragments don’t regard those events in any real detail nor mention resurrection.

    Turning to Luke, while we don’t know who the author was it seems almost certain that this writer also wrote the Acts of the Apostles since their particular theology, language use and style all match very closely. Further both books were dedicated to an unknown person referred to as Theophilus – this may have been a name but it also may not have been since this name was often used as an honorary for an educated or learned person. Again this Gospel dates from too late to have been written by anyone witnessing the events of the alleged Christ’s life.

    Finally John… and not much to say about the author(s) here, almost nothing is known despite this Gospel being written later than all the others. It contains very, very small snippets that appear to have been written earlier – possibly even by people around at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived and died… but those snippets are too small to be helpful at all.

    What does seem apparent is that it was written in three different phases – the first being a retelling of an alleged eye witness account, the second adding in it’s own brand of theology that is very different from those in say Matthew and the third bringing it up to a fair version of what the modern Gospel of John is understood as.

    It seems almost certain that multiple authors were involved and also that these same authors wrote the First, Second and Third Epistle of John as well as the Book of Revelation. These were written from a very different theological point of view from the other gospels – Gnostic and positing that Jesus was never human, merely took on the appearance of it to hide his divinity. This Gnosticism was largely purged from the bible in the 3rd century but the fact remains that the authors were clearly of these beliefs. Further these authors took a highly anti-Jewish stance – very much contrary to the writer of Matthew.

    (8) Turning to the rest of the Bible – Paul of Tarsus IS historically known as the writer of much of the New Testament and we can even date when he was alive and where… but of course he could never have met Jesus and provides no evidence of his existence despite influencing Christianity far more than the alleged Christ ever did.

    Further one piece attributed traditionally to Paul, Hebrews, was clearly not written by Paul and was in fact introduced by Church elders some time in the fourth or fifth century. It also differs theologically from Paul’s writings.

    Moving on from Paul, we look at James… very little is known about the author(s?) of this one but what we do know suggests that the traditionally ascribed authors – either Jesus’ alleged brother James or the other Apostle of that name – are almost categorically ruled out. This is because there is very little chance that they could write in formal Greek which was originally used to pen this work. A Palestinian Jew like either of the two James would have written in Aramaic rather than formal Greek.

    Now we look to the First and Second Epistles of Peter; the first was originally ascribed to Simon Peter the Apostle… but like Mark and James the author of this one was both fluent and skilled in writing in formal, cultured Greek rather than in Aramaic. Further it references the Greek translated Old Testament, not the Hebrew OT that Simon Peter would have learned from.

    The Second Epistle wasn’t seriously held to be the work of Simon Peter at any point on the other hand. Indeed it doesn’t seem to have been written by the same author as the first epistle was – it’s much less educated Greek writing. Further it’s noted that the accounts of what should have been personal experience appear to be formulaic and the details sparse – it’s nothing that couldn’t have been drawn from other documents and suggests once again no real knowledge of the events it attempts to detail.

    The audience for both of these works by the way appears to have been Gentiles in non-Pauline areas of the diaspora but like with so much of the bible we simply don’t know who the real authors were.

    Finally we have Jude – allegedly written by Jude, brother of James the Just. The problem here is that it actually references the Epistles of Peter and therefore CANNOT have been written by Jude as he would have been long dead by the time it was penned. Late first century or early second century seems a likely date for it – especially since like many other parts of the new testament it’s written in formal, educated Greek and contains Gnostic references that the church attempted to purge in the third century. It’s possible that the writer was the head of a church competing with the tradition of Paul’s church since comments in the brief letter suggest he’d read Paul but didn’t agree with him.

    (9) So there we have it – we may not know who many of the authors were but in most cases they CANNOT have been those that the Church has historically claimed as the authors.

    tl;dr? Basically you’re wrong about both claims and additionally the fact is that the Bible presents no first hand accounts of the life of Jesus written by witnesses to the alleged events, only hearsay written many decades to centuries later on. Given that, as mentioned earlier, we know that fictional characters such as John Frum can be invented as messianic figures in less than fifty years… there is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed.

    Thanks for playing.

  153. on 30 Jan 2014 at 10:07 pm 153.A said …

    Brazier,

    First I made no claims of Josephus or Tacitus. Therefore you have a reading comprehension problem.

    Second, on the synoptic Gospels you have yet to provide sources for your contentions. On John, you have yet to provide sources for your contentions. PS: Better check your dates……

    Third, you claim referring to me “You don’t seem to up to date on knowledge of biblical scholarship”. Only one problem. I made zero claims. I did ask for Freddie and now you to provide proof of your claims. You and Freddie failed.
    ____________________________________

    You then claim “there is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed.”

    LOL!!!!!!!!!, a relatively new claim without substance that is a mere fabrication to help the atheist talking points. Dismissed without supporting evidence.
    ____________________________________________

    PS: I am very aware of Biblical scholarship and very familiar with the ancient and modern claims. However, Freddie made a very bold “Truth” claim therefore he should support such a bold assertion. Agreed? Feel free to try again.

  154. on 30 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 154.alex said …

    “First I made no claims of Josephus or Tacitus.”

    congratulations, motherfucker. you’ve managed to turn the burden of proof around. well done.

    but, your jeebus still does not exist. unless you got something else?

  155. on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:56 am 155.DPK said …

    Hanaha.. “A” gets completely owned and then tries to back away with his usual dodge and weave.
    Cue the sock brigade.
    Bazza, thanks for the detailed and highly informative post.
    Don’t expect any actual intellectual discourse with “A” he has nothing, never has, never will.
    “A”, seems god has determined that you would once again get hung out to dry… Lol, funny how that omniscience thing never seems to work to your advantage, huh?

  156. on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:19 am 156.freddies_dead said …

    153.A said …

    “Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect”

    Run Freddie run. You are doubling down on your claim and sill have provided 0, zero, nada evidence to support. lol!!!!!!!

    It’s a lol alright, coming from you, the man who never ever provides evidence for any of his claims.

    What makes there authorship “almost certainly incorrect”? Your imagination? Lol!!!!!

    Nope, the work of the historical scholars as I’ve already noted.

    By now after a google search you have found you have no leg to stand on. Thus you continue to just state your silly opinion.

    More like your Google search hasn’t turned up anything to counter my claims so you’re back simply stating your silly opinion that I’m wrong.

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1.

    Because you can’t.

    You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    Go on then. You keep making these grandiose claims but never actually follow through.

    Because you can’t.

    Run! Freddie! Run! lol!!!!

    What a surprise, playground taunts is all you have.

    155. A said (in response to Bazza’s pretty thorough explanation of current historical thought regarding the authorship of the Josephus, Tacitus and gospel writings)

    Freddie made a very bold “Truth” claim therefore he should support such a bold assertion. Agreed?

    Such hypocrisy. You made some very bold “Truth” claims yourself back in post 136, claims you’ve so far failed to back up in any way, shape or form. As you agree such bold claims should be supported why are we still waiting for you to do so?

    Here’s a quick reminder of what you claimed:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    These claims require several other things to be true:

    1) Your God needs to exist.
    2) It must be the Christian God (unless you’ve has been lying all along about your religious worldview).
    3) Your God is omniscient (both you and the Bible make this claim)
    4) Your God has a plan (as claimed in the Bible – purported to be the inerrant word of your God)

    I have asked you several times now to provide your argument supporting the existence of the Christian God and to explain how free will is possible in light of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being who has allegedly foreordained all that will come to pass.

    What have we been given 0, zero, nada evidence to support lol indeed.

    In which case we’re perfectly justified in dismissing your claims as they come without any supporting evidence.

    Watch as A attempts to divert things back to the Gospel authors as he has not one single shred of evidence to prove the existence of his God.

  157. on 31 Jan 2014 at 2:58 pm 157.A said …

    “Nope, the work of the historical scholars as I’ve already noted.”

    sigh………..no you have not noted……still opinion and vague references. So lets have all these scholars and the arguments….. Lol!!!

    Remember, you claimed truth so every scholar would all conclude Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by others.

    The best part…….they would all conclude that was a myth to keep Christianity going……lol!!!;;!;!

    I have the popcorn ready. This will be good!!!!

  158. on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:03 pm 158.A said …

    “I have asked you several times now to provide your argument supporting the existence of the Christian God”

    Yes you have, although I have made no claim. But let me answer so you understand. Scholars make the claim.
    Then add multiple paragraphs of bloviating opinion.

    There you go!!

    lol!!!!!!

  159. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:21 pm 159.freddies_dead said …

    158.freddies_dead said …

    Watch as A attempts to divert things back to the Gospel authors as he has not one single shred of evidence to prove the existence of his God.

    Yup, I was dead right as usual.

    160.A said …

    I have made no claim

    Liar.

    Here’s a quick reminder of what you claimed back in post 136:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    In post 158 you not only claimed something, you boasted about your ability to do it:

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1. You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    And I asked you to go ahead. Once more … nothing.

    The silence of you supporting your claims is deafening A. Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because you have nothing to offer.

  160. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:37 pm 160.A said …

    Freddie-boy!!, I answered you in post 158! Lol!!!!

    Come on buddy, if you can just use scholars as your answer why can’t I my boy!

    sigh….I guess freddie’s truth was not really truth after all. Popcorn getting cold and Freddie is dead.

    Wait, was Brazier your scholar? Lol!! He was, you!!

    PS: I will take apart claim 1 when I am done with 2. Part of the excitement is hooking the fish and letting it run. ????

  161. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:53 pm 161.freddies_dead said …

    162.A said …

    Freddie-boy!!, I answered you in post 158! Lol!!!!

    You never answer anything A.

    Come on buddy, if you can just use scholars as your answer why can’t I my boy!

    Name them. I’ve already named a couple. Then you can give some of the evidence they based their conclusions on (as Bazza has done). The evidence they have must be compelling to you so present it.

    sigh….I guess freddie’s truth was not really truth after all. Popcorn getting cold and Freddie is dead.

    You wouldn’t know truth if it came up and shat on your popcorn A. That’s why you’re a theist.

    Wait, was Brazier your scholar? Lol!! He was, you!!

    Now you’re just gibbering.

    PS: I will take apart claim 1 when I am done with 2. Part of the excitement is hooking the fish and letting it run. ????

    You’ll do nothing. As always. Why? Because you can’t.

  162. on 31 Jan 2014 at 5:15 pm 162.A said …

    “Name them. I’ve already named a couple”

    Great!! List one or two in your next post so we can examine their claims. List a couple who claim the synoptic were named with their current names to “keep Christianity going”.

    We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……

  163. on 31 Jan 2014 at 8:42 pm 163.DPK said …

    “We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……”

    So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.

    Let’s try again with this one that you ran away from screaming like a frightened little schoolgirl.

    “Once again, assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”,(x and y being defined as 2 different actions presumably determined solely by my free will) is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”?”

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

  164. on 31 Jan 2014 at 8:57 pm 164.A said …

    “So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.”

    I agree DPK. I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.

    I guess since he can’t back up his claims he is just a boy of faith. lol!!!

  165. on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:08 pm 165.DPK said …

    Knowing full well we are talking about you… are you going to answer the question? hahahahha… no you are not, and we all know why, don’t we?

    Shall I embarrass you once again??
    Why not?
    Assuming your god has perfect knowledge (which you claim e does)that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”,(x and y being defined as 2 different actions presumably determined solely by my free will, which you also claim I have) is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”? Any possibility AT ALL?

  166. on 31 Jan 2014 at 11:17 pm 166.alex said …

    “I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.”

    that’s because you’re a moron. think back about the discussion about evolution. motherfuckers like you will simply never accept it.

    you do the same shit with just about anything an atheist will say in here. you’re somehow convinced that if an atheist cannot prove anything to your liking, this somehow proves your bullshit god.

    let’s just say everything, 100%, that every atheist has uttered in here is total bullshit, how the fuck does that prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?

  167. on 31 Jan 2014 at 11:52 pm 167.A said …

    ” back about the discussion about evolution”

    Hey! Great idea Alexis. Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution or takes place. I couldn’t get Freddie to answer that one either.

    I need more than f-bombs and weak attempts at insults. I am a man of science.

    “prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?”

    Scholars say so.:)

  168. on 01 Feb 2014 at 12:07 am 168.the messenger said …

    135.alex, you said the following.(ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it.)

    Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.

    Tell me, are you high or drunk? If so, please see a doctor.

    Now, getting back to the subject at hand, the hindi event was disproven by science, but the sun miracle was not disproven. 100,000 at the same time saw a miracle in Portugal, and none of them denied it. If the miracle was fake, it would have been denied by at least one person there. But it was not denied by any of the witnesses and is therefore a true miracle.

  169. on 01 Feb 2014 at 1:16 am 169.alex said …

    “Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.”

    i completely understand now, why you’re such a fucked up, dumbass, piece of shit. your stoopid, twisted biblical interpretations are now understandable. you are mentally retarded. i will not explain my post so that you may wallow, puzzled in your brine pool of stupidity. here’s my post again, the source of your great bewilderment.

    “ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?”

  170. on 01 Feb 2014 at 1:23 am 170.alex said …

    “Scholars say so.:)”

    you dumbass. you indignantly challenge numerous statements in here, and you answer with that brilliantly crafted retort? it proves you’re a dumb motherfucker, prolly messenger’s college kin.

    “Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution ”

    who cares? i’ve already told you that science is all bullshit, but you keep trying to sidetrack by endlessly trying to regurgitate the sideshit. go fuck yourself. it’s already in god’s plan sans free will and all. it’s called masturbation, see?

    fucking asshole.

  171. on 01 Feb 2014 at 5:54 pm 171.DPK said …

    “Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.”

    Messy, ever occur to you that maybe he was only speaking of a metaphorical 750 billion, as a way of saying “a lot”? Much like your god uses the word “eternal” to mean “not actually forever, but a long time”. hahahaha… we can play this game too, see?

    A seems to be unwilling to answer the question about the omniscient properties of his god. He has claimed in the past that it is possible for you to have complete free will to choose your future actions, even though his god already has knowledge of exactly what you will do, therefore negating ANY possibility of you actually being able to choose anything but what he already knows you will do. The idea of the 2 concepts being possible at the same time is of course, completely impossible.
    I will take his refusal to debate the issue a concession that his position is indefensible.
    Next.

  172. on 02 Feb 2014 at 12:00 am 172.DPK said …

    Now that we have settled the issue of free will and an omniscient god as an impossibility, let’s see if we can get messenger straightened out.
    Messy continually refers back to one isolated event pegged the “miracle” of the sun as evidence for the existence of his god. Now this event, in which the sun was reported, by a large number of people, to have moved rapidly about the sky, dancing around, spinning, and changing position. Let’s look at the claims.
    First, this phenomenon apparently had no actual purpose…. In other words, no long lasting miraculous events came from it, so,it makes you wonder why god would have need for something so useless as methophorically “burning rubber”? A flashy show with more actual point. It is curious to note that many people who were ALSO there at the same time, reported seeing nothing.
    More importantly, no observatories anywhere in the world reported that the sun actually moved. Indeed, if it had, such an event would have seriously disrupted the orbits of the earth and all the bodies in the solar system. This would have left a lasting and measurable affect to this day. Furthermore, a body as large as the sun moving millions of miles and suddenly changing direction would defy the laws of physics and would have had profound and lasting effects on everything from climate to geology.
    In short… The motion attributed to the sun from the people there that day did NOT in fact happen in reality. If it had, we would have unquestionable evidence left behind.

    So, we have a name for what we call it when a person or group of people see an event that did not, in fact, happen. It is called an hallucination, and it is not at all uncommon for people to have them. Group hallucinations, or mass hysteria, are also a well documented and not uncommon occurrence. Look it up.

  173. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:02 am 173.the messenger said …

    171.DPK, my conclusions are all supported by text evidence that I have provided to you. Nothing that alex has said even remotely supports you metaphor claim.

    You are an idiot.

  174. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:15 am 174.the messenger said …

    169.alex, only a retarted person, like your self, would believe that 750 billion people are on the earth.

    I do not twist biblical interpretations. All of my claims are made by studying the passages and seeing the bible as one whole book instead of separate verses like you see it.

  175. on 02 Feb 2014 at 6:13 am 175.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, you have already been called out for twisting bible verses.

    Do not lie.

    You have twisted “eternal”, and still cling to your deluded take on homosexuals.

  176. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:51 pm 176.alex said …

    “I do not twist biblical interpretations.”

    you refuse you stone adulterers and sunday workers. you say that rapists can marry their victims. you’ve spoken to god. you say homosexuals are no good. you say allah and yahweh are the same.

    here’s my earlier post AGAIN:
    “ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?”

    what part of “my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?” is difficult to understand. oops, i forget, you’re a dumbass, bitchass, motherfucker.

  177. on 02 Feb 2014 at 2:02 pm 177.alex said …

    as somebody pointed out, eternal is not what you interpret, you dumbfuck.

    before you get on your strawman shit again, my cussing and ill temperament has nothing to do with your bullshit god. as i sit here doing my work, it’s too easy to respond to your stupidity.

    go fuck yourself and go seattle! nothing against peyton, but the media overfawns on him. reminds me too much of your god.

  178. on 02 Feb 2014 at 6:38 pm 178.DPK said …

    171.DPK, my conclusions are all supported by text evidence that I have provided to you.

    Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, both live in person, and on television around the world.
    Do you believe he actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear?

  179. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:07 am 179.A said …

    “Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear”

    Dippy. I was just in NY, the statue is still there……geez …..lol!!!!

    Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup? That is more impressive than Dip’s fear that the statue disappeared! Lol!!!

  180. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:24 am 180.alex said …

    “Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup”

    more diversions? how about: i don’t know….

    would you like to prove that your god did it?

    how does an all knowing god give you free will?

    you’re a fucking moron.

  181. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:38 am 181.alex said …

    “That is more impressive than Dip’s fear that the statue disappeared! Lol!!!”

    self Lol with your schoolyard taunt? you’re a pathetic piece of shit motherfucker. you got nothing, so you resort to going back and rehash.

    asshole.

  182. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:14 am 182.the messenger said …

    176.alex, I never said that homosexuals were no good. I speak to GOD through prayer, and he answers through signs in my life. I already told you that the stoning is metaphorical, and I provided text evidence to support it.

  183. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:21 am 183.the messenger said …

    178.DPK, the statue of liberty trick can be explained by science, but “the miracle of the sun” can’t.

    Tell me, can you explain that event?

    I am waiting.

  184. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:32 am 184.alex said …

    “…that the stoning is metaphorical…”

    and you also said that rapists can get off by marrying the victim. you know why your other homies don’t agree with you? coz, you’re a dumbfuck.

    “..the statue of liberty trick can be explained by science, but “the miracle of the sun” can’t.”

    he already did, you dumbass. “…a body as large as the sun moving millions of miles and suddenly changing direction would defy the laws of physics and would have had profound and lasting effects on everything from climate to geology.”

    of course, you won’t get it. you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  185. on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:43 am 185.the messenger said …

    184.alex, the witnesses of the “miracle of the sun” reported to have seen a large disk in the sky as bright as the SUN. Some of them assumed that it was the sun, but that was never confirmed. The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there.

    You really lack in knowledge.

  186. on 03 Feb 2014 at 4:00 am 186.alex said …

    “The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there.”

    keep hanging on to you delusion, you dumb motherfucker. if it wasn’t the sun, it was some sort of god shit, wasn’t it? even though you can’t prove it, it must be the god shit, wasn’t it?

    i can’t find my other sock and scientists can’t figure it out. it must be god shit, isn’t it? go fuck yourself, you rapist fantasizing bitch. go pray to allah/yahweh since you say they are both the same.

    oh, and get some of your homies to come in here and to agree with you.

  187. on 03 Feb 2014 at 5:30 am 187.DPK said …

    The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there….
    Obviously. So the “miracle of the sun” had nothing to do with the sun? Lol!

    So some people claimed to see something in the sky that other people did not. Why do I need to “explain it”? I have no idea what they thought they saw, and neither do you.

    I don’t need to explain it any more than you need to prove the Statue of Liberty did NOT actually disappear. Get it now, moron? The default answer to anything that is not immediately explainable is not therefore “god did it”… See?

  188. on 03 Feb 2014 at 7:28 am 188.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “176.alex, I never said that homosexuals were no good.”

    Should homosexuals be killed simply for having sex, or NOT?

    Answer this, no bullshit.

  189. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:20 pm 189.freddies_dead said …

    164.A said …

    “Name them. I’ve already named a couple”

    Great!! List one or two in your next post so we can examine their claims. List a couple who claim the synoptic were named with their current names to “keep Christianity going”.

    Which, of course, is your way of avoiding providing any evidence for your claims. You’re just so predictable.

    We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……

    Getting closer to what? You providing evidence? Unlikely.

    166.A said … (to DPK)

    “So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.”

    I agree DPK. I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.

    I guess since he can’t back up his claims he is just a boy of faith. lol!!!

    Liar. I have provided the names of 2 scholars and Bazza presented some of the evidence those scholars used to come to the conclusion that the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries and that the gospel authors are almost certainly not the people who were attributed with authorship back in the 2nd century.

    Then, since you made such a big fuss about people backing up their claims, I presented you with the opportunity to back up some of the claims you’ve made such as:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    So far you’ve said you know these things because of “scholars”, although you refuse to name any and also refuse to adduce any of the evidence that they supposedly used to come to these conclusions. Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because you can’t.

  190. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:21 pm 190.freddies_dead said …

    169.A said … (to alex)

    ” back about the discussion about evolution”

    Hey! Great idea Alexis. Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution or takes place. I couldn’t get Freddie to answer that one either.

    Liar. I proved it several times over on that thread. For months we went through this, so much so that you had to resort to bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with evolution – like abiogenesis – and when we finally got to a point where science doesn’t know what happened you still couldn’t produce any evidence for your claim that God did it.

    I need more than f-bombs and weak attempts at insults. I am a man of science.

    Liar.

    “prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?”

    Scholars say so.:)

    Which ones and what evidence do they base these conclusions on?

  191. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:24 pm 191.freddies_dead said …

    And I notice that messy is still lying about proving the Bible commands to stone people to death are metaphors.

    That’s funny but then he doubles down on the stupidity and makes the claim that the miracle of the sun didn’t actually contain any sun.

    You really couldn’t make this shit up.

  192. on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:23 pm 192.DPK said …

    180.A said …

    “Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear”
    Dippy. I was just in NY, the statue is still there……geez …..lol!!!!

    Well of course it is. David clearly returned it after he made it disappear. Are you an idiot?
    I take it by your mocking tone that you believe what all those people saw was just an illusion? Can you prove it?

    I take it since you took the time to chime in with a completely meaningless attempt at mockery, that you agree with Messy, that the “miracle” he describes with the sun moving around several million miles per second and changing shape actually occurred? What evidence do you offer that this was not also simply an illusion or hallucination? I mean, we have 2 miraculous events witnessed by large numbers of people without a conclusive explanation. The only difference is EVERYONE who witnessed Copperfield’s miracle reported seeing the statue “disappear”, but not everyone at Fatima in 1917 reported seeing the sun dance around.

  193. on 03 Feb 2014 at 4:55 pm 193.DPK said …

    180.A said …
    “Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup?”

    I don’t know. Do you?
    If so, your Nobel Prize awaits. Tell us the explanation, and don’t forget to include your sources.

    Anybody need a beer?

  194. on 03 Feb 2014 at 9:04 pm 194.A said …

    “I have provided the names of 2 scholars.

    Liar

    “Brazza presented some of the evidence”

    Liar

    Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.

    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..

    sigh……

  195. on 03 Feb 2014 at 10:59 pm 195.DPK said …

    The fossil record is far more compelling evidence than a dancing sun and some ancient story books of questionable origin.

    What else you got? I thought you were going to explain to us the origin of life and reconcile the idea of free will with a future that has already been determined.
    What happened?

  196. on 03 Feb 2014 at 11:13 pm 196.A said …

    ” fossil record is far more compelling evidence”

    Liar

    Evidence of what?

    Atheism? lol!!!!!!!

    Dippy, make yourself useful and post the two scholars never-steady Freddie claimed he referenced!

    lol;!!!!!

    Thanks go coming

  197. on 03 Feb 2014 at 11:45 pm 197.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Evidence of what?”

    The fossil record, when cross referenced with anatomy, and genetic trees, fits perfectly, and is the single most compelling piece of evidence for evolution.

  198. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:08 am 198.DPK said …

    So, I asked… Again…
    “What else you got? I thought you were going to explain to us the origin of life and reconcile the idea of free will with a future that has already been determined.
    What happened?”

    To which the blowhard “A” replied:
    “Dippy, make yourself useful and post the two scholars never-steady Freddie claimed he referenced!”

    So, I guess we take that as another concession you have absolutely nothing?
    Not even a dancing sun or talking donkey? Shit man, even the bible writers could make up better stories than you, and they didn’t have an Astrophysics degree Lol. You’re what we call a no- trick pony! Hahaha.

  199. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:25 am 199.alex said …

    “Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.
    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..”

    in your wildest dream, all atheists are liars. even wilder, all the heathens are killed!

    what’s that smell? all the xtian god shit, muslim god shit, hindu god shit still stinks!

    the premise that THE muslim god AND THE xtian god AND ALL the hindu gods created man is still impossible. same shit with an all knowing god giving you free will.

    btw, why would THE god even utter, “thou shalt not have no other gods….”? ooops, i fergit. it’s all bullshit, even though there are no atheists to say it.

  200. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:52 am 200.the messenger said …

    188.Angus and Alexis, no they should not. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and to love all people no matter what. They law states nothing about killing homosexuals.

  201. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:57 am 201.the messenger said …

    175.Angus and Alexis, I did not twist any bible verses or passages.

    I did not twist the word eternal, I proved that(when referring to hell) “eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever”. I provided text evidence to support this in the past. Why do you ignore evidence?

  202. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:05 am 202.alex said …

    ““eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever””

    your idiot is showing (again). juxtapose any time against eternity and what do you get? a blip, you dumb motherfucker. in other words, a SHORT period of time.

    asshole.

  203. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:40 am 203.the messenger said …

    187.DPK, There is one consistent detail in most of the witnesses accounts. A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into the earth drying all of the rain water off of the crowed.

    How can you prove that with science.

  204. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:46 am 204.alex said …

    A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into Messenger’s head, drying out the miniscule brain he started off with.

    Now messenger just goes around mumbling: rapist marry woman, eternal is not forever, homos bad, yahweh = allah, say what god?, mumble, jumble.

    Can you prove that with science, DPK?

  205. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:55 am 205.A said …

    “fossil record, when cross referenced with anatomy, and genetic trees, fits perfectly, and is the single most compelling piece of evidence for evolution.”

    ROTFL!! What did you copy that from….lol!!!!

    Now this is true for microevolution but we don’t need fossils for that.

    Lets continue the claim. We find a jaw bone for dinosaur X. Lets see, we compare this to which anatomy? Maybe a tool? Lol!…. then make Ass-umptions X, Y, Z after hiring a great artist!

    Then of course we take the fossilized jaw, hire a creative artist and shake the gene tree!! Lol!!!!!

    Oh Agnus! So young and gullible. So how dat soup create that first cell Agnis? That should be easy with some anatomy and genes. Lol!!!

  206. on 04 Feb 2014 at 2:06 am 206.alex said …

    ” We find a jaw bone for dinosaur X. Lets see, we compare this to which anatomy? Maybe a tool? Lol!”

    science bad, evolution fake, what’s the alternative?

    making woman from a rib? now that’s believable. lol indeed. nope, there’s more. all those fossils older than the biblical beginning of time? placed there by the omnipotent god, knowing that the atheist heathens will find them, thus fulfilling their destiny of everlasting torture. what? am i on drugs?

  207. on 04 Feb 2014 at 3:58 am 207.the messenger said …

    204.alex, once again you have dodged the question and gave no answer to my question, further proving that your comments have no substance.

    I pity you.

  208. on 04 Feb 2014 at 4:00 am 208.the messenger said …

    204.alex, if you are not willing to give any information against our claims then you should just leave.

    You are the king of dodging questions, and you act immature like a bratty child.

    Grow up.

  209. on 04 Feb 2014 at 7:01 am 209.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “188.Angus and Alexis, no they should not. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and to love all people no matter what. They law states nothing about killing homosexuals.”

    Messenger, please at least TRY to be honest.
    The bible clearly states that if a man sleeps with another man, like he would with a woman, he is to be put to DEATH.

    Homosexuals therefore must be put to death, yes, or no?

    “I did not twist the word eternal, I proved that(when referring to hell) “eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever”.”

    Messenger, by definition, eternal means FOREVER, thus trying to twist the word would be twisting the bible, and thus GODS word.

    Are you seriously trying to twist your own imaginary friends words?

  210. on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:02 am 210.alex said …

    “once again you have dodged the question”

    you mean this?

    “A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into the earth drying all of the rain water off of the crowed.
    How can you prove that with science.”

    you get to spew nonsense and you want scientific proof? once again you’ve demonstrated that you’re a stupid dumbass goat herder motherfucker. your spinning light is bullshit and you want proof to dispute it?

    look bitch, a ufo is sighted. can you disprove it. see how ridiculous your question is? your brain is empty, can you disprove it. messenger rapes woman and tries to marry her, can you disprove it.

    get the picture, you dumb motherfucker?

  211. on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:09 am 211.alex said …

    you mean this:
    “So how dat soup create that first cell Agnis?”

    asked and answered, you dumb motherfucker. the answer is, i don’t know.

    remember bitch, your yahweh/allah cannot possibly coexist with the other hundreds of hindu gods. let me guess, all the gods are the same?

  212. on 04 Feb 2014 at 4:19 pm 212.freddies_dead said …

    196.A said …

    “I have provided the names of 2 scholars.”

    Liar

    Nope. Post 111.

    “Brazza presented some of the evidence”

    Liar

    Nope. Post 154.

    Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.

    Nope, the facts of reality do. Unfortunately for you the facts of reality show you to be wrong … as usual.

    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..

    sigh……

    The transitional fossil found using the scientific method you mean? We spent a long time on that thread discovering that you’re almost entirely ignorant of science, the scientific method or the nature of evidence.

    You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution – partly due to your refusal to openly state your own beliefs (most likely because you’re well aware of how stupid they are) and partly because you’re incompetent at all things scientific. And when we finally got to the point where you had nowhere left to dodge or run to, you still couldn’t offer a positive ontology for your God.

    Right there where science admits it does not know, you had the perfect chance to show that your God exists and that it was He that did it.

    What did you do? You ran away … again.

    This time will be no different.

    So, to speed things up, lets assume we’ve gotten to the point where science admits it doesn’t know – that should save us a couple of months of you whining about stuff you know nothing about.

    Here you go A. Here’s your chance. Give us a positive ontology for your God. Explain how you know it’s the Christian God and demonstrate that it was your God that bought everything into existence. Then you can explain exactly what processes your God used to bring about the current state of biodiversity.

  213. on 04 Feb 2014 at 6:41 pm 213.A said …

    “Nope. Post 111.”

    Liar unless you…are…Dippy….and even then no scholars.

    ‘Nope. Post 154.”

    Liar, you other sock posted opinion.

    “The transitional fossil found using the scientific method ”

    No the fish fossil you assume is transitioning into another species……wait, do you have supporting evidence it is transitioning into another creature?

    Oh, never mind, your cop out is all fossils are transitional.

    lol!!!!! I guess we can quite looking.

    “You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution”

    No, just that macro evolution has zero evidence using SM.

    It not observable
    Its not testable
    Its not falsifiable

    Oh, a fossil is not observing macroevolution.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!

  214. on 04 Feb 2014 at 7:04 pm 214.alex said …

    “ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!”

    yeah, keep patting yourself on the back, smug in your delusion that Your god did it. unless of course, you got something?

    HEY, I FINALLY GOT IT! we can dig out the GM Saturn which was created by the youngest of the Titans. I stand corrected, a god did it!

  215. on 04 Feb 2014 at 10:35 pm 215.freddies_dead said …

    213.A said …

    “Nope. Post 111.”

    Liar unless you…are…Dippy….and even then no scholars.

    Apologies, it was 109. Still not a liar

    ‘Nope. Post 154.”

    Liar, you other sock posted opinion.

    As you’re so set on people backing up their claims you can go ahead and back up your unsubstantiated assertion that I am Bazza and that what was posted was simply opinion.

    “The transitional fossil found using the scientific method ”

    No the fish fossil you assume is transitioning into another species……wait, do you have supporting evidence it is transitioning into another creature?

    All on the other thread. Your continued bleating doesn’t change the fact that it’s a transitional fossil found using the scientific method.

    Oh, never mind, your cop out is all fossils are transitional.

    As you’re so set on people backing up their claims you can go ahead and back up your unsubstantiated assertion that the observation that “all fossils are transitional” is a “cop out”.

    lol!!!!! I guess we can quite looking.

    So much for your claim that you are “a man of science”. Giving up when you don’t like the evidence doesn’t strike me as much of a scientific thing to do.

    “You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution”

    No, just that macro evolution has zero evidence using SM.

    Despite you bleating, the evidence was given on the other thread

    It not observable
    Its not testable
    Its not falsifiable

    No, that’s your imaginary God.

    Oh, a fossil is not observing macroevolution.

    Define macroevolution and then demonstrate that it’s impossible to conclude that macroevolution has taken place by observing the characteristics of fossils

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!

    You’re saying the Gettysburg Address didn’t happen because you can’t watch it now? You really are strange.

  216. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:04 am 216.the messenger said …

    209.Angus and Alexis, Leviticus 20:13 does not specify who will be the executioner, and therefore could be referring to a natural death as the killer of them.

    GOD will most likely pardon them and not punish them, just like he pardoned the adulteress in john 8:2-11.

  217. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:23 am 217.the messenger said …

    210.alex, this is not nonsense, these are actual eyewitness accounts. You claim that all “miricles” can be explained through science, therefore, care to explain this event with science.

  218. on 05 Feb 2014 at 1:46 am 218.alex said …

    “You claim that all “miricles” can be explained through science..”

    lyin bitch you are, but basically you and your whole flocked up fucks, position is: if it cannot be proven to your approved liking, then goddamnit, goddidit!

    if i or science cannot prove (to your approval) that donkeys cannot talk, then according to the bible, donkeys must talk, yay?

    let’s say you’re right and the muslims are right and the hindus are right. how the fuck is that possible?

    dumbass, motherfucker, you are.

  219. on 05 Feb 2014 at 3:19 am 219.A said …

    Dorothy M. Murdock?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ok, now I didn’t see where she claimed the NT Gospels as you claim (liar) was not written by the authors as listed. Strike 1!

    she is a writer, don’t see her listed as a scholar. Strike 2!

    Most academic scholars disagree with her writins. Strike 3, you are out again.

    You need to stop staring at fossils until you dee macroevoltion happening (lol!!!!) and het a clue unsteady freddie. No wonder you tried to hide your um ER uh….scholars.

    No time to check out your other Mensa. Dorothy was enough.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

  220. on 05 Feb 2014 at 11:58 am 220.freddies_dead said …

    221.A said …

    Dorothy M. Murdock?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ok, now I didn’t see where she claimed the NT Gospels as you claim (liar) was not written by the authors as listed. Strike 1!

    Ms Murdock has written about the writings of Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.

    But, seen as you’re not happy with Ms Murdock, you could try Gary Greenberg instead. He’s President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York and a Fellow of the Jesus Project. He also wrote the book “Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions.”.

    she is a writer, don’t see her listed as a scholar. Strike 2!

    No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here? I suspect not. She has a degree in classics and is a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. What are your qualifications in the field, A?

    Most academic scholars disagree with her writins. Strike 3, you are out again.

    Once again you make the assertion but totally fail to back up your claim. Where’s this exhaustive list of scholars along with a breakdown of which ones agree/disagree with Ms Murdock?

    For such a stickler over claim backing you seem utterly unable to back up any of your own.

    You need to stop staring at fossils until you dee macroevoltion happening (lol!!!!) and het a clue unsteady freddie. No wonder you tried to hide your um ER uh….scholars.

    I notice you utterly failed to define macroevolution despite the explicit request for you to do so.

    It’s unsurprising but fortunately (for us of course, not so much for you) you equated macroevolution to speciation on the other thread and you can quite easily pop over to the TalkOrigins website and read all about the observed instances of speciation. Cue A changing his mind over what constitutes macroevolution while still refusing to actually define what he means by the term.

    As for scholars, we’re still waiting for you to present even one scholar and the evidence they’ve used to determine that God exists. I would ask if you’ll be doing this anytime soon but we all know you won’t … because you can’t.

    No time to check out your other Mensa. Dorothy was enough.

    What a surprise, an ignorant theist refusing to do any proper research. Because research is the theists enemy. Once you start studying it’s only a matter of time before your pathetic theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence that directly contradicts your ridiculous beliefs.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

    Indeed.

  221. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:37 pm 221.A said …

    “Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.”

    You seem to have forgotten I challenged your Gospel claims! Strike 4

    “No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here?”

    Absolutely, but why only modern? Your now have evidence of your next claim that the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    And further, the fact you don’t realize all the scholars who support authorship of Gospels by those named means you know zero about the subject.

    Strike 5

    “theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence”

    lol!!!!! I am a man of truth. Bring on the truth and I will happily change. It must be more than looking at a bump on a fish fossil and claiming you know observe macro evolution! strike 6

    Amd lastly, you don’t even know the definition of macroevolurion? My spell checker knows the word! ROTFL!!! STRIKE?

  222. on 05 Feb 2014 at 1:49 pm 222.freddies_dead said …

    218.the messenger said …

    209.Angus and Alexis, Leviticus 20:13 does not specify who will be the executioner, and therefore could be referring to a natural death as the killer of them.

    Holy crap! (yet again). You mean the Bible went to all the trouble of mentioning that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) just so it could threaten homosexuals with a natural death? How can anyone be “put to [a natural] death”? As usual messy makes no fucking sense.

    GOD will most likely pardon them and not punish them, just like he pardoned the adulteress in john 8:2-11.

    How do you know He won’t just have them mauled to death by a couple of she bears like He did with 42 kids who called someone a baldy?

  223. on 05 Feb 2014 at 2:57 pm 223.freddies_dead said …

    223.A said …

    “Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.”

    You seem to have forgotten I challenged your Gospel claims! Strike 4

    Not at the point that I mentioned the original 2 scholars. I’ve since provided you with another scholar regarding the Gospel claims. So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.

    “No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here?”

    Absolutely, but why only modern?

    Produce the list then. Presumably it’ll have notes stating which scholars agree or disagree with Ms Murdock?

    Your now have evidence of your next claim that the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?

    I have made 2 claims so far:

    1). That the passages in Josephus and Tacitus were forgeries.

    2). That the gospels were authored by people other than those attributed with authorship back in the 2nd century.

    I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Bibles for anything. I did accuse them of forging the paragraphs in non-Biblical sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus, and the only real reason for them to do that is to try and legitimise their claims in order to further their religion. If you dispute this you’re welcome to show some other reason that they would have forged those passages, or your evidence that those passages are authentic of course.

    And further, the fact you don’t realize all the scholars who support authorship of Gospels by those named means you know zero about the subject.

    Strike 5

    What fact? Where have I denied the existence of scholars who support the early church’s decision to attribute the authorship as they did? Oh, that’s right, I haven’t.

    “theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence”

    lol!!!!! I am a man of truth.

    Liar.

    Bring on the truth and I will happily change.

    Liar.

    It must be more than looking at a bump on a fish fossil and claiming you know observe macro evolution! strike 6

    And you’re still lying about the evidence you were given on the other thread.

    Amd lastly, you don’t even know the definition of macroevolurion? My spell checker knows the word! ROTFL!!! STRIKE?

    I’m not sure what your argumentum ad spellcheckerum was supposed to achieve, but the spellchecker on my version of Firefox doesn’t recognise the word … erm … so there!

    Moving swiftly on. I’m aware that, despite there being absolutely no change in the underlying process itself, macroevolution is generally referred to as transitions at the taxonomic level of species (or higher).

    I also noted that you had equated macroevolution to such in the other thread, hence I’m correct in noting you’ve been given the evidence for that too.

    However, your dishonesty seems to know no bounds and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see you try to deny that definition so you can claim you haven’t been given the evidence for macroevolution. Then you’ll carry on refusing to define what you mean so you can carry on trying to avoid acknowledging that you’ve been answered. Because you’re dishonest.

  224. on 05 Feb 2014 at 3:00 pm 224.freddies_dead said …

    In my previous post I wrote:

    “I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Bibles for anything”

    when, in fact, I meant to write:

    “I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Gospels for anything”

  225. on 05 Feb 2014 at 5:38 pm 225.A said …

    ” So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.”

    My assertion continues your fact claim has not been supported. You seem reluctant to provide PROOF that solidly support what you call Truth. Need names and there fact based claims which leave no doubt.

    “the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?”

    Yes, in your original claim withe the Gospels. I reposted it multiple times. Proof please! Lol!!!!!

    While you research your claims so we can call them truth, as you claim, look up macroevolution. HINT: It is the opposite of micro. I know you like to pretend all evolution has the same proof however that is only your delusion.

    Now come on! Bring that truth so we can all convert!

    lol!!!!!

  226. on 05 Feb 2014 at 6:47 pm 226.A said …

    Let me repost freddie-boy from 118 since he has memory issues. Forgive his sentence structure.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Lets see if he can prove any if this.

    popcorn heating up…

  227. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:10 pm 227.the messenger said …

    222.freddies_dead, I said that he may pardon them, therefore the pardon may not happen, I do not know which one will happen.

    If they have remorse for their sins they will be forgiven. GOD is not fast to punish with severity, he is merciful and patient.

    Death comes to all of our earthly bodies, it could be caused out of punishment or simply our time to go to heaven, but either way it will happen.

    A natural death can be caused by GOD because he could make their bodies deteriorate faster.

  228. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:13 pm 228.the messenger said …

    218.alex, the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking.

    Stay on subject.

  229. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:47 pm 229.DPK said …

    “218.alex, the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking.

    Stay on subject.”

    Proof again that messenger, who come here to give us god’s word, has not even ever read the bible! LOL.

  230. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:57 am 230.alex said …

    “Lets see if he can prove any if this.”

    i believe in santa, but i can’t prove it and this somehow proves your bullshit bible?

    all these other shits is a smokescreen, a fabreeze attempt to mask the malodorous, toxic stench of your biblical crap. flush, you impolite motherfucker.

  231. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:58 am 231.the messenger said …

    229.DPK, the word “donkeys” is plural, and there is only one donkey that GOD ever gave the ability of speech to.

    The entire donkey species does not have the ability to speak, only one donkey was given the ability of speech. It was a one time thing.

    Now lets get back to the subject of this debate.

  232. on 06 Feb 2014 at 3:11 am 232.the messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, the church has two purposes, preach GOD’s message of love and kindness, and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.

    The church is not trying to gain power from any human, they are trying to help people become more loving towards one another, just as GOD commanded.

  233. on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:32 am 233.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    ” and there is only one donkey that GOD ever gave the ability of speech to.”

    Prove that magical speech can be given to donkeys.

    “only one donkey was given the ability of speech. It was a one time thing.”

    Prove it.

    “and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.”

    A: Prayer does not help the sick, poor, nor sad.
    B: Lonely people need friends, not IMAGINARY friends.

  234. on 06 Feb 2014 at 12:01 pm 234.alex said …

    “Prove that magical speech can be given to donkeys.”

    it true. if the talking bush can do it, trivial for a donkey.

    see how this works? bullshit evidence to buttress the bullshit assertion.

    messenger: alex, you’re full of shit. it not bush, it burning bush….. bleh!

  235. on 06 Feb 2014 at 12:52 pm 235.A said …

    “Lonely people need friends, not IMAGINARY friends”

    yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!

    lol!!!

    “Prayer does not help the sick, poor, nor sad.”

    Funny……..they tell me it does and even ask for it. But Agnus, just for you and Alexi I will lass along your um, we, eh….advice…

  236. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:01 pm 236.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said…
    “yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!”

    I have a social life, Alexis is just an addition.

    “Funny……..they tell me it does and even ask for it.”

    Note that “telling” and “asking”, does not equate to “Actually works”.

  237. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:06 pm 237.alex said …

    “yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!”

    and of course this offering is so much more fulfilling.

    …strike down upon alex with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

    paraphrasing of course, but since samuel is blackie, he not a true xtian.

  238. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:38 pm 238.freddies_dead said …

    227.A said …

    ” So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.”

    My assertion continues your fact claim has not been supported. You seem reluctant to provide PROOF that solidly support what you call Truth. Need names and there fact based claims which leave no doubt.

    I’m not talking about your continued request for evidence despite being presented with it. It’s not my fault that you don’t like the evidence, deal with it. No, I’m talking about the claims you’ve made. Claims that remain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions as you refuse to back them up with evidence.

    Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never claimed that they were, you just made that shit up yourself and tried to make out it was what I had said – can you say strawman, A? Because that’s all it is.

    Where’s your evidence that God has given you free will?

    Where’s your evidence that God knows what you will do?

    You might want to provide evidence that God exists first of course and that it’s the Christian God.

    Where’s your evidence as to how free will is even possible when an omnipotent, omniscient deity has foreordained all that will come to pass?

    Where’s your list, A? You claim to have one, why haven’t you posted it yet?

    You’re the one who started whinging about backing up claims yet you’ve made no effort to back up any of your own. Hypocrite.

    “the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?”

    Yes, in your original claim withe the Gospels. I reposted it multiple times. Proof please! Lol!!!!!

    Incorrect, as usual. Let’s see what really happened shall we?

    Before we start I’d like to mention that there’s something iffy about the post numbering on this thread. In A’s post at 228 (on my PC) he refers to something he says I posted at 118, however, when I look at 118 it’s one of A’s posts and the section he quotes is actually from post 120 on my PC. I believe it may have something to do with a couple of posts I made very early on in this thread which went into moderation (most likely because I’d put some URLs in the posts). Therefore you may need to check the post + or – 2 numbers from the one stated.

    In 115 you said:

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain?

    In 120 I responded:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Now, people who can read for comprehension will be able to figure out that the first part of my sentence rules out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as part of your little conspiracy theory because they almost certainly weren’t the ones who actually wrote the gospels attributed to them. I’ve also mentioned already that the writings in Josephus and Tacitus are widely believed to be forgeries, so once again, those people aren’t part of your little conspiracy theory either. Instead the forgeries were carried out by early church leaders in the 2nd century who, as I’ve already stated, were attempting to legitimise and extend their religion. If they weren’t trying to legitimise and extend their religion you have to wonder why they were adding extra passages into non-Biblical works.

    I also never claimed that they “made up Jesus” either – despite your strawman claim that I did.

    While you research your claims so we can call them truth, as you claim, look up macroevolution. HINT: It is the opposite of micro.

    This is a monumentally stupid claim to make, even for you, A.

    Lets unpack what you’ve said here shall we?

    Microevolution is generally defined as “change in allele frequency in a population over time” so the opposite of that would be “no change in allele frequency in a population over time” i.e. nothing would change.

    The best thing though, is that you don’t believe macroevolution happens and you’ve now equated macroevolution to “no change at all”. Well done A, you’ve just argued that change happens – which is exactly what evolution says.

    I know you like to pretend all evolution has the same proof however that is only your delusion.

    Based on your previous comment I think it’s obvious to all that the only deluded one here is you, A. When macroevolution tends to be* the accumulation of lots of small changes over longer periods of time then it is the same evidence that supports both it and microevolution. We know you don’t like that fact but you’ve yet to present any argument/evidence of a barrier to small change equalling large change over time. You’re welcome to try any time you feel up to it.

    *I say ‘tends to be’ as you’ve already been pointed to evidence of instances of macroevolution (the species to species change kind) that have been observed by scientists so it’s not only small changes adding up to large changes over time.

    Now come on! Bring that truth so we can all convert!

    lol!!!!!

    Why do you continue to lie, A? Other than because you’re just plain dishonest of course? It doesn’t seem to matter what evidence we put before you, you show no intention of evaluating it honestly so your claim to be prepared to “convert” is an empty gesture on your part.

  239. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:39 pm 239.freddies_dead said …

    229.the messenger said …

    222.freddies_dead, I said that he may pardon them, therefore the pardon may not happen, I do not know which one will happen.

    You said he’d “most likely” pardon them. You seemed far more certain of their fate whan you posted that, why backtrack now? Is it because you haven’t really got a clue what will happen? That would be a surprise.

    If they have remorse for their sins they will be forgiven.

    What? So no belief in God necessary then? Just a bit of remorse? I can’t say as I’ve seen any other self-proclaimed Christians make a similar claim. How do you know this? i.e. Why should we trust your interpretation rather than say, the Westboro Baptist Church’s position?

    GOD is not fast to punish with severity, he is merciful and patient.

    Except when he’s not, like when He drowned the whole world because the people acted exactly as He’d created them to act, or when He had 42 boys mauled to death by she bears for calling someone a “baldy”. I mean, if this is Him being merciful and patient, I’d hate to see Him get upset.

    Death comes to all of our earthly bodies, it could be caused out of punishment or simply our time to go to heaven, but either way it will happen.

    So your argument is that the punishment will happen either yes, no or maybe. Is anyone else thinking God’s approach to punishment is very much akin to His response to prayer i.e. non-existent?

    A natural death can be caused by GOD because he could make their bodies deteriorate faster.

    How can we distinguish between who is being punished by having their “bodies deteriorate faster” and who is simply dying a bit quicker courtesy of nature?

  240. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:42 pm 240.freddies_dead said …

    234.the messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, the church has two purposes, preach GOD’s message of love and kindness, and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.

    Odd, from what we’ve seen in the news it seems the Church is actually here to provide a shelter to a large number of child rapists – that seems to undermine your claim that they’re here to preach love and kindness. The Catholic insistence of lying about condoms in Africa also undermines your claim that they’re trying to help the sick and the poor.

    The church is not trying to gain power from any human, they are trying to help people become more loving towards one another, just as GOD commanded.

    Then why are right wing American Christians desperately trying to pull down the wall between church and state? If they don’t want power over others, why are they seeking to force themselves into the political arena? Why are the religious company owners trying to use that religion to prevent their employees from getting healthcare?
    Why do they want to be able to teach non-science to children? Why are the Christian African theocracies pushing through laws making homosexuality illegal? Why are the Muslims trying to force people to live under Sharia Law? If the church leaders are not interested in having power over other humans why are they trying to force their beliefs onto others? At pain of death in some cases?

    From very early on religion has been a tool used to gain power over others; for priests over their followers etc… By interpreting the words of their Holy books in their own favour they remain in power and by pushing their religion onto others they seek to extend that religion and, by extension, their own power. Christianity is no different to most other religions in that respect.

  241. on 06 Feb 2014 at 10:43 pm 241.A said …

    “Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never”

    Never claimed you did. You claim the church started a conspiracy to keep control. Here let me post your words again to remind you.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?

    No, didn’t think so…..lol!!!!!

    Run Freddie Run!!!!

  242. on 06 Feb 2014 at 10:46 pm 242.alex said …

    fucking morons are everywhere.

    moron names his kid “messiah” and the other idiot orders the moron to change the messiah’s name.

    where is messenger’s acid test for true xtianity?

    just like every shit that comes out of his mouth, it’s bull.

  243. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:01 pm 243.alex said …

    “Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?”

    self patting again? how the fuck does anybody’s statement, true or false, prove your god?

    i say that the great odin jacked off and his sperm spawned mankind. does my inability to prove it legitimize your god?

    asshole.

  244. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:36 pm 244.A said …

    Alexander,

    You seem like a highly intelligent young man. A great education, a fine finishing school and some keen insight into contemporary issues. Maybe you could shed some light on the claims made by Freddie? Your analysis would be greatly welcomed.

  245. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:56 pm 245.alex said …

    “Maybe you could shed some light on the claims made by Freddie?”

    me and freddie don’t believe in your god shit. if freddie and i agree or don’t agree about everything else, is irrelevant.

    bait failed.

  246. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:41 am 246.A said …

    Lol!! So paranoid and funny

    Love ya buddy.

    Lets see if freddie-boy can support his claims I related in 241. My money is on he will run and change the subject. Lets watch…..

    popcorn on!…….

  247. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:58 am 247.the messenger said …

    233.Angus and Alexis, the way to prove that the donkey event happened is to prove that GOD is real, and I have already proved his existence.

    Prayer gives people hope.

    We Christians and Jews offer money and supplies to help the poor. GOD is not imaginary.

  248. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:00 am 248.alex said …

    “So paranoid…”

    now, i remember where i’ve seen that quip! it was in the secret pervert priest handbook that was discovered by the investigators. it’s the standard retort when little boys rebuff.

    are you the author?

  249. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:03 am 249.the messenger said …

    234.alex, are you high, it was GOD in the form of a flaming bush.

    Now can we please get back to the subject of this debate?

  250. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:09 am 250.alex said …

    “Now can we please get back to the subject of this debate?”

    if motherfuckers like you aren’t dangerous, i would invite you to a party. not an atheist party, but just a regular one. you would be great for a few laughs, but after a few, it would be too dangerous for you..

    of course, you won’t understand my prose, but that’s the beauty of it. and it’s plain englash.

  251. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:41 am 251.the messenger said …

    239.freddies_dead, I have confidence that he will forgive them due to his forgiving nature, but it could go either way.

    A belief in GOD is not necessary, ok.

    My interpretation of the bible is trustworthy because it is mostly comprised of catholic interpretations(teachings from pope peter himself)but with only a few differences(for example, my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal).

    I am a liberal catholic.

  252. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:48 am 252.the messenger said …

    250.alex, I do not have any desire to attack you with physical violence. If you attacked me through physical violence I would defend my self with a weapon, though I would not enjoy hurting you. Atheists tend to be intolerant and hateful people.

    Most atheist leaders are murders, such as stalin and hitler amd karl marx.

  253. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:06 am 253.alex said …

    “I am a liberal catholic.”

    you are an idiot, marooned on your island of delusion. how about calling on your homies and get them to reply on this blog to vouch for you in agreement. none?

    your list of crap is tiresome and ridiculous. why won’t martin support you? why won’t anybody?

    “If you attacked me through physical violence I would defend my self with a weapon..”

    instead of the anonymity, why don’t you publicly proclaim your stance on rape? you better get a big weapon.

    try the court house when a rapist is on trial. yell out your conviction, but you won’t….. asshole.

  254. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:13 am 254.alex said …

    “Atheists tend to be intolerant and hateful people.”

    wrong again, motherfucker. forget about the hitler was/was not an atheist. if you can come up with a recent crime perpetrated by an atheist motive, i can come up with 100, with religious intent. wanna try it?

    asshole, lyin bitch.

  255. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:35 am 255.Vox said …

    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

    “ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
    The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

    The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

    Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation

  256. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:44 am 256.alex said …

    256.Vox said …

    bleh, bleh, and more motherfucking bleh.

    you think you got a monopoly on bullshit skills? let me demonstrate mine.

    throughout history, xtian fanatics have beeen responsible for killing more that 150,000,000,236 gazillion non-xtians. this atrocity has been vigorously denied, but the evidence is undeniable. even though, i can’t produce it, i promise you that the evidence exists. bleh, bleh, bleh.

    you like my bullshit?

  257. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:41 am 257.DPK said …

    on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:35 am 257.Vox said …

    … A bunch of blah blah, completely undocumented and unsupported claims…. And how does the bad behavior of any number of atheists, agnostics, or any particular political philosophy have any bearing on the existence of imaginary gods? Are you that dense? That no more proves your imaginary god exists than the rampant corruption in this Catholic Church proves he doesn’t.
    For the sake of argument, let’s assume every atheist in the world is a murdering, thieving, lying, selfish bastard. So what? How does that prove your imaginary god is real? It doesn’t, so?

  258. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:19 am 258.freddies_dead said …

    243.A said …

    “Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never”

    Never claimed you did.

    Then why ask me for evidence for such a conspiracy, moron?

    You claim the church started a conspiracy to keep control. Here let me post your words again to remind you.

    I never said it was a conspiracy, that’s all in your own head. There’s no conspiracy they just blatantly made shit up.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Yup and I stand by what I said. It’s what religions do. They make shit up – like Gods and demons, talking donkeys and men living in whales, global floods that didn’t happen and the ability to force what hide pattern you’ll get by breeding livestock in front of different patterned sticks.

    Then they claim an authority they don’t deserve through the God they made up in order to get other people to do what they say.

    Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?

    You gonna provide any proof of your God A-hole? Or any of the other mutitude of claims you’ve failed to back up so far?

    No, didn’t think so…..lol!!!!!

    Nor me … lol.

    Run Freddie Run!!!!

    Run from what A? You? That really is a lol and a half. I’m stood right here asking for proof of your God and all you can manage is diversions and outright lies. We know why. It’s because your God is imaginary.

  259. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:25 am 259.freddies_dead said …

    248.A said …

    Lol!! So paranoid and funny

    Love ya buddy.

    Lets see if freddie-boy can support his claims I related in 241. My money is on he will run and change the subject. Lets watch…..

    popcorn on!…….

    ROFLCOPTER. It’s now us changing the subject. The whole forum is about the total lack of evidence for any God and yet all A is interested in is trying (and failing) to find gaps in evolution, butchering the scientific method while claiming to be “a science guy”, uttering outright lies about what other posters have said and even lying about his own identity in failed attempts to buttress his unsubstantiated claims.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A? That’s what the site is about, why do you always change the subject?

  260. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:39 am 260.freddies_dead said …

    253.the messenger said …

    239.freddies_dead, I have confidence that he will forgive them due to his forgiving nature, but it could go either way.

    That’ll be the same forgiving nature that has condemned untold billions to an eternity of torment for simply failing to live up to rules they were created specifically unable to follow. Your claim of a loving and merciful God is just so much horseshit.

    A belief in GOD is not necessary, ok.

    Then why are you so desperately trying to get us to believe in one?

    My interpretation of the bible is trustworthy because it is mostly comprised of catholic interpretations(teachings from pope peter himself)but with only a few differences(for example, my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal).

    I am a liberal catholic.

    Your claim of trustworthiness due to being somewhat Catholic is wholly undermined by the Catholic church’s continued protection of the child rapists in it’s ranks. I wouldn’t trust a Catholic any further than I could throw the Vatican.

    Also, why should I accept your interpretations any more than a liberal Muslim, or a liberal Mormon, or a liberal Hindu? None of you can demonstrate the existence of your God(s).

  261. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:46 am 261.Vox said …

    ‘None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)

    Yup and I stand by what I said”

    Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.

  262. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:37 pm 262.freddies_dead said …

    263.Vox said …

    ‘None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)

    Yup and I stand by what I said”

    Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.

    Oh look, A’s been in his sock drawer again.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A?

  263. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:44 pm 263.freddies_dead said …

    257.Vox (A pretending to be someone else) said …

    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

    Of course, what Vox Day (the actual Vox Day not A’s new sockpuppet Vox) fails to note is that, if his claim that God exists is true, then every single one of those deaths can be laid squarely at God’s door.

    After all it was God that created every one of those atheists and it was God who planned that they should kill all those people. Such a loving and merciful God you Christians have got there.

    And back to A’s new sockpuppet. Where’s the proof for your God, Vox?

  264. on 07 Feb 2014 at 3:50 pm 264.DPK said …

    263.Vox said …
    “Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.”

    And ONCE AGAIN “A” forgets to change his screen name and is busted sock puppeting.

    Harharhar…. what a deceitful sack of shit. Does the holy book supposedly authored by his omnipotent god forbid bearing false witness?

  265. on 07 Feb 2014 at 3:57 pm 265.freddies_dead said …

    266.DPK said …

    Harharhar…. what a deceitful sack of shit. Does the holy book supposedly authored by his omnipotent god forbid bearing false witness?

    Such lies from a so called “man of truth”, you couldn’t make this shit up.

  266. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:32 pm 266.alex said …

    “Such lies from a so called “man of truth”,”

    the allure of redemption. free pass to do anything! it’s fantastic, until you try it in court.

  267. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:35 pm 267.DPK said …

    “Such lies from a so called “man of truth”, you couldn’t make this shit up”

    I’ve come to expect nothing less from him. He is a very sad excuse for a human.
    But Messy??? Someone should write a book with his stupidity.

    “The bible doesn’t say anything about talking donkeys.”

    “Messy, you haven’t actually read the bible, have you?”

    Messy scrambles to google “talking donkeys in the bible” and comes back with.

    “There was only ONE talking donkey… there weren’t any talking donkeys… I was right!”

    THAT shit you actually couldn’t make up… no one would ever believe it! LOL

  268. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:42 pm 268.Angus and Alexis said …

    Talking about books.

    Wasn’t Alex making a compilation on A and Messenger’s posts?

  269. on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 pm 269.alex said …

    “Wasn’t Alex making a compilation on A and Messenger’s posts?”

    yeah, but i ran into memory/cpu problems when i tried to consolidate mess, hor, martin, etc.

    cheap ass hosting account.

  270. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:03 pm 270.A said …

    “Vox (A pretending to be someone else”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! I gladly admit I posted Vox and used his name. Its called integrity. Lol!!!!!

    unlike Freddie busted as anonymous and continued to lie. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then Brazzier!

    I posted it as Vox because Vox wrote it. That was for Alex not for you. He wanted some actual deaths caused by atheists. Lol!! Its a specialty!!!

    But Geez, what have I done. Gave unsteady Freddie a chance to run from his truth claim. Lets try again.

    staging by ut???

    Still running Freddie??? His claim:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Well Freddie lets see you defend it…… My truth claim…..he runs, changes subject. Watch it unfold!

    lol!!!!!!!

  271. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:07 pm 271.A said …

    “After all it was God that created every one of those atheists and it was God who planned that they should kill all those people. Such a loving and merciful God you Christians have got there.”

    After unsteaday freddie defends his other truth claim I will then destroy this one. Don’t want to give him more reasons to run. :)

  272. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:45 pm 272.DPK said …

    Ahh… so “A” is a Theodore Beale fan, so much so that he plagiarizes his writings and post under his pseudonym, and then claims that as integrity.
    So, the racist, homophobic, misogamist, bat shit crazy Vox Day is is hero…. Stan, that tells us so much.
    Here is another quote from “A”‘s hero:
    “[In]light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban’s attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.”

    Another gem from his hero:
    “I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.”

    Whatever tiny shred of legitimacy “A” may have sill had is gone. Go back to your van out behind the supermarket and preach your manifesto to the wine-os and derelicts… ROTFLOL!!!!

  273. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:10 pm 273.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, I have stated before that hell is not forever.

    I am trying to get you to believe in GOD because even though it is not nessesary, it is still a good thing to do.

  274. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:31 pm 274.A said …

    “Ahh… so “A” is a Theodore Beale fan, so much so that he plagiarizes his writings and post under his pseudonym”

    ROTFL!!! WHOO!!!!, so the name “Vox” AND the part where I state “Vox Day notes” in the post didn’t meet proper footnoting for a……..blog! Maybe I should have quoted fellow atheist, Stalin!

    lol!!!!!!!

    A fan of Vox? No not really but he can back up his claims. And Dippy, it got you to do some research!!

    That reminds me…. Where is unsteady Freddie? Still hiding?

    yeah. ……..

  275. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:39 pm 275.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic, it is mostly catholic, but it does not include the “no salvation outside the church” doctrine (because it is an over literal interpretation of matthew 16:13-20) or the “eternal hell” doctrine either (because it fails to understand that people can be saved from hell, which is proven in 1 John 1:9 because it reveals the way that we can escape hell).

  276. on 09 Feb 2014 at 10:50 pm 276.alex said …

    “260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic”

    you dumbass. you didn’t interpret that. that was already part of god’s plan, ain’t it? fuck outta here.

  277. on 10 Feb 2014 at 2:50 am 277.alex said …

    oh, i forgot the other thing. it’s in god’s plan that the resident two (2) fuckheads will come back in here and say some stupids shits.

    it’s not a choice….. do it, motherfuckers.

  278. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:41 pm 278.freddies_dead said …

    I see the lying fuckwit A is desperately trying to divert the conversation away from his own dishonesty. Too funny.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A?

  279. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:43 pm 279.freddies_dead said …

    275.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, I have stated before that hell is not forever.

    I know you’ve stated it but you’ve offered no proof that your interpretation is any more creditable that that of any other purveyor of theist bullshit.

    I am trying to get you to believe in GOD because even though it is not nessesary, it is still a good thing to do.

    If it’s not necessary, what in the hell makes it “good”?

  280. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:46 pm 280.freddies_dead said …

    277.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic, it is mostly catholic, but it does not include the “no salvation outside the church” doctrine (because it is an over literal interpretation of matthew 16:13-20) or the “eternal hell” doctrine either (because it fails to understand that people can be saved from hell, which is proven in 1 John 1:9 because it reveals the way that we can escape hell).

    Where in 1 John 1 does it claim that you can confess your sins and repent whilst in Hell? Or are we supposed to simply imply that it’s the case because it doesn’t specifically rule it out?

  281. on 10 Feb 2014 at 6:33 pm 281.A said …

    I am indeed a prophet! Unsteady Freddie comes back, attempts to change the subject and refused to support his claim! Lol!!!

    Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

  282. on 10 Feb 2014 at 7:07 pm 282.alex said …

    “Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!”

    ok, all atheists here are delusional/crazy. you happy? your turn. omnipotence while granting free will? like the irresistible force versus immovable rock, it’s bogus.

    some people claim that an omnipotence god cannot create something that will render him not. huh? all this double talk can be avoided by the simple fact that you can’t be both. round square, baby.

  283. on 11 Feb 2014 at 12:49 pm 283.freddies_dead said …

    283.A said …

    I am indeed a prophet! Unsteady Freddie comes back, attempts to change the subject and refused to support his claim! Lol!!!

    Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Lol. The lying cunt is back trying to divert the conversation away from his dishonesty.

    Not going to happen, A. I’m not interested in trying to carry on discussing things with inveterate liars such as yourself.

    Unless you’ve got proof of your God’s existence you’ll get nothing but deserved scorn from me.

  284. on 11 Feb 2014 at 9:09 pm 284.A said …

    Now unsteady Freddie comes back with personal insults. Truly sad but totally expected. Way back on this thread Freddie made a claim he stands behind yet will provide no supporting evidence for his truth claim:

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    He claims I am the liar but has no proof of that either. There it is for all to see. I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.

    sigh…….

  285. on 12 Feb 2014 at 11:55 am 285.alex said …

    “I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.”

    kazaaam! in your wildest dream, all the godless atheists and their mindless, unproved arguments are wiped out after a long and unbearable thousand years of torture.

    and still no god proof? who you gonna argue with? messenger and his yahweh = allah? and the moronic mooslims/hyundus?

  286. on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:32 pm 286.freddies_dead said …

    286.A said …

    Now unsteady Freddie comes back with personal insults. Truly sad but totally expected. Way back on this thread Freddie made a claim he stands behind yet will provide no supporting evidence for his truth claim:

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    He claims I am the liar but has no proof of that either. There it is for all to see. I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.

    sigh…….

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  287. on 12 Feb 2014 at 6:26 pm 287.A said …

    Awwwww, another epic failure by Freddie. Lets recap his lies again for our readers.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Second claim with mo evidence:

    “You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.”

    Third claim:

    “I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.”

    Well he hasn’t pointed out dishonesty. But atheist do discuss others more than issues.

    Fourth and final:

    “You even lie about your own identity.”

    Hmmmmm, never revealed my identity. My name is not A. Lol!!!!!! So……maybe he has a point! I hope dead Freddie is not his real identity! Lol!!!

  288. on 12 Feb 2014 at 7:29 pm 288.DPK said …

    “Hmmmmm, never revealed my identity. My name is not A. Lol!!!!!! So……maybe he has a point! I hope dead Freddie is not his real identity! Lol!!!”

    Well of course you have, remember when you got busted cross posting as Stan, the 40yr idiot? LOL indeed. And dishonesty??? from someone who has been busted pretending to be other people more times then any of us can even count?? That’s rich… you are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.. the one who always carefully avoids answering any direct questions lest his delusion be shattered. The one person you are MOST dishonest with here is yourself. You are a pathetic excuse for a human. Too cowardly to debate with honesty or integrity, so deceitful as to invent other persona to try to bolster support for your own idiocy, to despicable to even define your god, his properties, or even answer the simplistic of questions about your “faith”. Not much of a faith that you are so ashamed of it you refuse to even discuss it with integrity.
    You, Mr. “A” are a complete and total fraud.. and EVERYONE here (who is not you..LOL) knows it full well. You aren’t fooling anyone but your own pathetic self. ROTFLOL………….

  289. on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:03 pm 289.A said …

    “The one person you are MOST dishonest with here is yourself.”

    ROTFL!!!! Self time to be honest with self.

    “You, Mr. “A” are a complete and total fraud.”

    LOL!!!!! You right, I am not really A, I am Megatron. I have bee a fraud attempting to pass myself off as A but inside I knew I was just Megatron. I can see it now! I even pretended to be everyone on the blog! My apologies to the real A and all.

    Dippy you make me laugh so. The blog is where your feel real life happens, huh:)

    Since it is so serious to you Dippity Doo, start by answering the many questions I have posed to you time and time again!

    Prediction: Dippy will not follow through, again. Do I think him a fraud, dishonest, lacking character as he paints me? Nah, just way over his head with the serious questions of life!

  290. on 13 Feb 2014 at 12:12 am 290.DPK said …

    More lies? I challenge you to produce even one legimate question you have asked of me that I have not answered.
    You on hue other hand, have steadfastly refused to answer any specific questions about your god, his properties, or your faith…
    Remember the best I ever got out of you was a definition of your god as being a ” somewhat clever, kind of powerful being? Answers always either avoided or very carefully crafted to provide plenty of squirm room.
    Such a bold liar you are. I predict your god, should he be real, would be most displeased. What does the bible say awaits liars?
    Lol, very loud indeed!

  291. on 13 Feb 2014 at 1:03 am 291.A said …

    And once again Dippity Dew glosses over every challenged made to him again!

    No evidence
    No facts?
    Lame claims!

    Now he wants me to go back over all the questions which have gone unanswered! Lol!!!!!

    Dippys claims dismissed.

  292. on 13 Feb 2014 at 1:27 am 292.the messenger said …

    282.freddies_dead, yes, because it does not rule it out, and also because 1 Timothy 1:12-16 reveals that Jesus(aka, GOD) came to save sinners from sin, and is therefore a GOD of forgiveness.

    Jeremiah 31:33-34 explains the current and future effects of the new covenant, in which it states that GOD will I “….forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs”.

  293. on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:35 am 293.DPK said …

    “Now he wants me to go back over all the questions which have gone unanswered! Lol!!!!!”

    No, I challenged you to name even one.
    But you won’t because you can’t. A liar of epic proportions.
    No one expects any less of you… all mouth, no balls.
    LOL

  294. on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:31 am 294.freddies_dead said …

    289.A said …

    A load of shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  295. on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:46 am 295.freddies_dead said …

    294.the messenger said …

    282.freddies_dead, yes, because it does not rule it out,

    So, despite the fact that it doesn’t happen anywhere in the Bible, because it’s not specifically ruled out it’s possible? That’s your argument? Well OK then. Using your logic. Just because my becoming God doesn’t happen in the Bible, the fact that it’s not specifically ruled out means I could become God. W00t! What fun.

    and also because 1 Timothy 1:12-16 reveals that Jesus(aka, GOD) came to save sinners from sin, and is therefore a GOD of forgiveness.

    Did Jesus forgive anyone while He spent that long weekend in Hell? I’m pretty sure the Bible doesn’t mention anyone. Let’s face it, the whole idea that we get from the Bible is that, you must repent and trust in Jesus before you die and face judgement. There’s nothing to suggest you’ll get a second chance to repent while you’re being tortured for all eternity.

    Jeremiah 31:33-34 explains the current and future effects of the new covenant, in which it states that GOD will I “….forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs”.

    Apart from the ridiculous concept of an omniscient deity forgetting something, those passages say nothing about forgiving sin after death.

    It’s bad enough Christians figure they can get away with anything as long as they repent and trust in Jesus before they die, just think how bad they’d be if they felt they had the option to leave that whole repentance thing until after they were dead.

  296. on 13 Feb 2014 at 2:57 pm 296.A said …

    “Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty”

    well would you do it already? Lol!! You will nit because you lie.

    so moving on. Can you support this claim with some evidence? Use the scientific method if you like :)

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Wonderful claim……can he support it?…..

  297. on 13 Feb 2014 at 4:38 pm 297.freddies_dead said …

    298.A said …

    A load of shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  298. on 13 Feb 2014 at 8:12 pm 298.A said …

    None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Wonderful claim……can he support it?…..

    The answer is a resounding no. Freddie tells another lie. Sorry Freddie, not my intention to embarrass you but liars must be exposed. You’ll learn from this.

    ????

  299. on 14 Feb 2014 at 4:39 am 299.DPK said …

    Not sure why you are so obsessed with this… 4 accounts that don’t even agree with each other written at least decades and probably a century after the supposed events, with no other historical support, bastardized over the centuries… Who do you think wrote them, and why were only these gospels included in the Christian bible, despite many others?

    So, you got nothing for my challenge to produce even one legimate question that I have failed to answer? So you’re just mouth, huh? Lol

    Shall we start again with the scores of questions you have failed to answer here?
    Na, nobody cares. We got your number, fraud.

  300. on 14 Feb 2014 at 1:56 pm 300.A said …

    “Who do you think wrote them, and why were only these gospels included in the Christian bible, despite many others?”

    If not the referenced writers then who? Why did they pretend to be an eyewitness for a belief system that would get your murdered? So you are claiming the apostles Luke, Matt and Mark died as martyrs death to propagate a lie? How did they benefit? Many more more martyrs even a century later. So prove the Gospels were written as a big hoax to control the masses.

    I don’t need to challenge when you have not asserted anything with evidence.

    Now try again.

  301. on 14 Feb 2014 at 7:01 pm 301.DPK said …

    “I don’t need to challenge when you have not asserted anything with evidence.”

    Ahhh… true. Equally true from my perspective. What evidence do you have that these carefully selected gospels were written by people who were actually eye witnesses to the supposed events?

    Now try again…. or don’t… I don’t care. The authorship of a several accounts of an ancient legend which do not even agree with one another about actual content is evidence enough for me that they are just stories. Next.

    But let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Running again?? LOL

  302. on 14 Feb 2014 at 7:39 pm 302.A said …

    “What evidence do you have that these carefully selected gospels were written by people who were actually eye witnesses to the supposed events?”

    I didn’t make the claim……freddie did claim they were not the authors AND it was used by the early church to perpetuate a hoax and to keep Christianity. going.

    I thought you were going to come to his rescue and provide evidence. Guess not, huh?

    So many posts ago and still no supporting evidence.

    :)

  303. on 14 Feb 2014 at 9:06 pm 303.DPK said …

    Ok, so you make no claim about the authorship of the gospels that supposedly dictate your faith? Ok, fine… then why do you care what anyone’s opinion on the matter is if you have no counter claim? LOL.

    What a fucking coward. I have offered evidence… the gospels that the christian religion claims are eyewitness accounts of supposed events in the life of one Jesus do not agree with one another on many specific points. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. If you have no counter claim, then my point stands.

    Now, why won’t you answer my direct question? Again?
    Seriously, why does this question terrify you so much?
    Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered? I guess that defines you as a liar and a fraud. hahahah. You are always good for a hearty laugh. It’s seriously a toss up between you and messenger as to which one of you has done to most to bolster atheism. Good work.

  304. on 14 Feb 2014 at 11:51 pm 304.alex said …

    “freddie did claim they were not the authors AND it was used by the early church to perpetuate a hoax..”

    so your gospel truth claim is supported by your counterclaim that some atheists are full of shit?

    why not defend the rest of the pile of shit? i claim that the donkey couldn’t speak because the ass’ language is composed entirely of heehaws. i can’t prove it, makes me full of shit therefore the donkey talk is the truth? huh?

    oh, i forget. some of the biblical shit is not to be taken literally and motherfuckers like you and messenger gets to decide which…..

  305. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:29 am 305.DPK said …

    And lest we forget… “A”, who is the most vocal in demanding answers from everyone has once again run away from even the simplest of questions about his magical god.

    “But let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Clearly he won’t answer because he is a complete and total fraud. LOL.
    Let’s all share a hearty laugh at his embarrassment.

  306. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:50 pm 306.A said …

    ” fine… then why do you care what anyone’s opinion on the matter is if you have no counter claim?”

    He didn’t give opinion he made a claim. Opinions start with “in my opinion”. See how that works? Lol!!

    You really are confused. So you agree with me….Freddie is a liar and his claim is no more than opinion?

    “Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered?”

    You have answered none. That was easy. Go back and pick a couple and answer them..Geez….about time.

    lol!!!!!

  307. on 15 Feb 2014 at 4:38 pm 307.DPK said …

    What a bullshit artist… you must be some kind of minister because lying just comes naturally to you.

    Here’s a clue for you… any claim about the authorship of the gospels is an opinion because no one alive “knows” who wrote them. Freddie’s opinion is in line with the majority of biblical scholars who actually study such things. If you are privy to knowledge that the rest of the world does not know… prove it. Otherwise, his claim is every bit as valid as yours… in fact more so, because the conflicting accounts of supposed eyewitness testimony and the fact that they contain factual errors and contradict one another suggests strongly that they cannot be actual eyewitness accounts written contemporaneously.
    But since you are not making any claim about it, you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind. Dismissed for lack of anything of substance.

    “Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered?”
    “You have answered none. That was easy. Go back and pick a couple and answer them..Geez….about time.”

    So that would be a “No”, huh? LOL LOL LOL. Can’t find even one? How embarassing for you… making claims you cannot back up.

    But let’s not forget your own hypocrisy….

    “let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Why won’t you answer this simple question? There are only two choices, “yes” or “no”. Pick one.

  308. on 15 Feb 2014 at 6:01 pm 308.A said …

    “Freddie’s opinion is in line with the majority of biblical scholars who actually study such things”

    um, actually……..No! and if you read a Bible….. ever you would find authorship is still attributed to the Gospel writers. Lol! But MORE importantly, Then how many then claim that authorship was used to continue the hoax of Christianity?

    whadda ya think spunky?

    “you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind”

    oh but I do. Exposing liars who claim Christianity was kept going by lying about Gospel authorship… :)

    You like to skip that lie. So we agree? Freddie is a liar?

  309. on 15 Feb 2014 at 6:54 pm 309.DPK said …

    No, but you most certainly are:

    “and if you read a Bible….. ever you would find authorship is still attributed to the Gospel writers.”

    hahahaha… yes, and the Keebler Elves make the cookies according to the Keebler Elves! What a ridiculous claim. Is that all you have? Dismissed. Your ability to chase your own tail endlessly is mind boggling.
    So, can you prove your claim that the gospels where written by eyewitnesses? If so, why doesn’t the gospel according to Mark even mention something as important as the resurrection? You’d think that would be kind of an important part… how come it is only mentioned in later versions?

    “you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind”

    “oh but I do…..” No, unless you are prepared to make a counter claim and provide evidence for it beyond “the bible says so” you have absolutely zero.
    Now hypocrite:
    “let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Why won’t you answer this simple question? There are only two choices, “yes” or “no”. Pick one.

  310. on 15 Feb 2014 at 10:00 pm 310.alex said …

    “You like to skip that lie. So we agree? Freddie is a liar?”

    dude, toldya already. every atheist is a liar, delusional, ugly, smelly, stinky, etc. anything else?

    did it change the bullshit omnipotent/giving free will god? bullshit donkey talking? bullshit jesus existing? bullshit rapist marrying the victim? should i go on?

  311. on 15 Feb 2014 at 11:52 pm 311.A said …

    “dude, toldya already. every atheist is a liar”

    Not true my dear Alexander. Freddie and Dippy dew are liars but you I admire. You are accomplished, well spoken and not afraid to speak your mind. Not to mention your tolerance and obvious love for all mankind. You are a role model every parent would like to hold up to their children.

    Now if we can just get Dippity dew to acknowledge that Freddie boy I’d a liar. You know but don’t believe Dip can bring himself to recognize the obvious. Lol, he tries so hard to change the subject…..hee hee

  312. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:10 am 312.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, that is ruled out, because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.

  313. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:27 am 313.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. A person can forget something, though the information is still in the brain, though it can’t be easily accessed.

    True, that verse does not specifically say “forgiveness of sins after death”, it says “forgive their sins”, which is an umbrella statement that includes all sins.

    I hope that I am enlightening you, brother.

  314. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:30 am 314.alex said …

    “because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.”

    you’re a fucking moron. if there’s only one god, why “thou shalt have no other gods…”? even worse, your moronic god had already planned for the other morons to worship the other gods and in his forgetful piousness, your god acts all vengeful and shit. your god should send hisself to hell, but maybe he did and just switched shit around, eh?

    how’s that rape shit going? tried it yet? shared it with other people instead anonymously/privately spewing your garbage on the internet?

    yeah, motherfucker. i’m anonymous too, but what is the shit i’m spewing?

  315. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:37 am 315.alex said …

    “you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. ”

    you dumbass. your powerful god knows everything that is to be because he can do anything. you’re a dumbass because it’s god’s plan and you’ll never be anything but a dumbass. but, you’re getting close of being a super dumbass which is prolly god’s plan.

    free will is bullshit. prayer’s success is inline with random chance and even you morons admit that an unanswered prayers is the result of god’s will.

    give it up. why don’t start your own religion? call it the “church of dumbass, chief dumbass messenger presiding”. the cool aid is this way.

    fucking dumbass.

  316. on 16 Feb 2014 at 5:11 am 316.DPK said …

    ” the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.”
    Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god too, and the Holy Spirit also? That’s three gods, and Jews do not accept Jesus as god, so how can he be the god of the Jews? You’re funny.

    “you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. ”

    Can god make another god more powerful than himself?
    Can god do something, and then regret that he did it?
    Can god make a mistake?

    While you’re answering ridiculous questions, maybe you could answer one that “A” refuses to answer and clear the subject up, seeing as how you are god’s messenger and all. Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Appreciate you clearing that up for us. Apparently the answer so terrifies A that he will not even speak of it. Whatever the answer is, it must be very bad.

  317. on 16 Feb 2014 at 6:30 pm 317.A said …

    I love that Alex dude. The words are just like honey off the screen. Now Alex is guy you what to hold up as an example for those taking classical speaking….:)

  318. on 16 Feb 2014 at 9:32 pm 318.DPK said …

    At least he speaks his mind and doesn’t tap dance around like a slimely little weasel.
    Yes, I’m talking about you.
    Btw, you never answered me. I guess you must have missed it, because you jump all over everyone else here if they don’t answer you…. But here is just one of the dozens of direct questions I have asked you many many times that you have neglected to answer. I’m sure it’s just an oversight though, because a good Christian like you would never intentionally be so blatantly hypocritical:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  319. on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:19 am 319.A said …

    Dippity you are back.

    Lets focus and see if we can get this questioned answered. Freddie ran like a coward

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Did Freddie lie? Is there proof this was done to “keep control over others”.

    Try to focus and answer honestly. Throw in some colorful f-bombs if you find your vocabulary lacking. Set a record, answer your first question :)

  320. on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:39 am 320.DPK said …

    Asked and answered. You have a reading compression problem. See post 309.
    Btw, you never answered me. I guess you must have missed it, because you jump all over everyone else here if they don’t answer you…. But here is just one of the dozens of direct questions I have asked you many many times that you have neglected to answer. I’m sure it’s just an oversight though, because a good Christian like you would never intentionally be so blatantly hypocritical:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  321. on 17 Feb 2014 at 5:23 am 321.alex said …

    “Now Alex is guy you what to hold up as an example for those taking classical speaking..”

    nice one, motherfucker. try posting to a non-U.S. site and see how you do? you too stoopid to even realize that my style is purposely stark and in your face. englash is not my first language, ya dipshit.

    you have nothing on me so you resort to the time tested theist diversionary tact. failed again, moron.

    you want me to call freddie a liar? ok, freddie is a liar. anything else you want me to call him? guess what, motherfucker? your god is still shit.

    your pompous, righteous references to fbombs don’t mean shit. especially when you champion a ridiculous book filled with foreskin obsessions, talking animals, and a psychotic made believe god.

    switch tabs, motherfucker. your porn has finished loading.

    classically speaking, what the fuck is “”Now Alex is guy you what to hold up…”? your sinuses acting up?

  322. on 17 Feb 2014 at 12:27 pm 322.A said …

    Dippity dew!

    Oh my! You never defend Freddie boys position. You only make a claim and that I don’t have a position. Answering the question would comprise of:

    1. Defending the claim the authors of the Gospels did not write them AND the church used this false information to keep Chriranity going.

    2. Or agree Freddie is a liar.

    BTW. Mark does give an account of the resurrection.

    Anywho, for someone who demands answers to a questions you sure Bo not follow through.

    Alex!

    Love ya babe. You silver tongue devil you! Lol! What finishing school was that?

  323. on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:39 pm 323.DPK said …

    “BTW. Mark does give an account of the resurrection.”

    Not the original versions, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t mention the virgin birth, another key element of getting people to believe that Jesus was the prophecized Messiah. It was added much later, and certainly not by Mark, which would certainly support Freddie’s claim. To what motive, one can only speculate, but if I were trying to convince people of the reality of a religion based on the idea that a particular person was a god who rose from the dead, and the earliest eyewitness account of the event failed to even mention such a crucial element, I suppose it would behoove me to add some creative writing.
    So, Freddie’s position is supported, and you make no claims. Done beating this horse yet?

    Now, it appears that my assumption that your refusal to answer my question was an oversight was misguided. You in fact seem to be hypocritically and purposely dodging the question, which leads me to assume that you don’t like the answer and are embarrassed to give it. But, generous soul that I am, I will give you one more chance to grow some balls.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  324. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:33 pm 324.freddies_dead said …

    In a bunch of posts. A said …

    Some more shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  325. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:47 pm 325.freddies_dead said …

    314.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, that is ruled out, because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.

    How does that claim stop me becoming the one and only God? After all your God can do anything, right? By refusing to take the Bible at it’s word you’ve effectively made it meaningless. You can read into it whatever you want. Convenient but ultimately self-defeating.

  326. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:48 pm 326.freddies_dead said …

    315.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything.

    Including making Himself non-omniscient apparently .. which contradicts the Bible’s claim about Him being omniscient. Well done.

    A person can forget something, though the information is still in the brain, though it can’t be easily accessed.

    A person can, yes. We’re not talking about people here though, we’re talking about God.

    True, that verse does not specifically say “forgiveness of sins after death”, it says “forgive their sins”, which is an umbrella statement that includes all sins.

    Then why does the Bible make such a huge point of repenting before you die? If it’s possible to repent post demise why wouldn’t you want people to know the good news?

    I hope that I am enlightening you, brother.

    Not so far. You might want to enlighten yourself before you attempt to enlighten others. Checking up on concepts such as omniscience and omnipotence might be a start.

  327. on 17 Feb 2014 at 6:16 pm 327.A said …

    “To what motive, one can only speculate, but if I were trying to convince people of the reality”

    So Freddie now just speculates? No no my dear boy. Freddie made a claim..so is he a liar or can you provide proof of this purposeful deception? We need to know so we can tell all the truth

    Stay focused rather than than attempting to change the subject.:)

  328. on 17 Feb 2014 at 7:12 pm 328.alex said …

    “1. Defending the claim the authors of the Gospels did not write them AND the church used this false information to keep Chriranity going.”

    diversion(s) is all you got?

    time and again, you’ve failed to prove the xtian monopoly on morals, creationism, the fucked up contradiction of an all knowing god with the miraginary free will and the clueless selfish motherfucking morons that thank god or rationalize that things didn’t go their way because of god’s plan.

    eternal bliss/hell is the last call for you morons, aint it? oh, and the redemption card, handy shit, for those who hatred against gays, women, and other religions.

    you fuckers pick and choose from the bible, but it never occurred to you morons that you can still have your heaven if you would just leave other motherfuckers alone. let the gays be and treat the women good. most of the shit in the book, you morons already rationalized away, anyways, so just say most of the shit is not literal, like genesis.

    now, go fuck yourself.

  329. on 17 Feb 2014 at 7:46 pm 329.DPK said …

    “So Freddie now just speculates? No no my dear boy. Freddie made a claim..so is he a liar or can you provide proof of this purposeful deception? We need to know so we can tell all the truth…”

    You have made a claim that there in an all powerful god, both omniscient and omnipotent, who created the universe and everything in it and you have never backed up that claim with even the suggestion of any evidence. Freddie has based his claim on historical evidence that would suggest that his claim is likely true. You have based your claim on, what exactly? That would seem, by your definition, to make you much more of a liar than Freddie.

    You wouldn’t acknowledge the truth if it slapped you in the face, because you are nothing but a lying, deceitful bastard. ANY claim made about ANYTHING that happened in the past cannot be “proven”… can you prove that Jesus existed? Of course not… all you can do is provide sufficient evidence to support the claim reasonably.
    It is not surprising that you do not grasp this simple concept, since you have in the past shown a complete and utter ignorance of the scientific method and the nature of evidence, despite your claim to be a “science guy”… LOL.

    The earliest gospels, written about 60AD, about 30 YEARS after the supposed death of Jesus, did not mention Jesus’ resurrection, or his virgin birth. These accounts were added much later some 40 to 60 YEARS later. So, someone “changed” the earliest written accounts for some reason. What reason do YOU propose for whoever did this, who by virtue of the limits of human life span, could not have POSSIBLY been eyewitnesses to the events described, had for doing this, and, can you prove it?

    Now, back to your god. Because unless you can demonstrate that this god of yours actually exists and has all the properties you ascribe to him, the motivation of some ancient sheep herder who was trying to also convince his fellow humans that HIS imaginary god was real is moot. So answer the question that so terrifies you and let’s examine the reality of your god.

    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Really don’t understand why this question is so very terrifying to you. I can either ONLY do what your god knows I will do, and have no choice in the matter, or I CAN choose a different path than the one that god knows will occur. It’s pretty simple. There are no other possibilities. I am either free to negate god’s perfect knowledge, or that is not possible… which is it, ASS?
    Why won’t you answer? It’s a question way more profound and important that the motivation of some 2nd century forger trying to convince people his god is real.
    What’s the problem?

  330. on 17 Feb 2014 at 9:16 pm 330.A said …

    “Freddie has based his claim on historical evidence that would suggest that his claim is likely true”

    Historical evidence? Lol!!! Let see that evidence that proves the gospels were not written by the stated authors AND it was used to keep Christianity going.

    This should be good. I like truth and sounds like we have some nee truth here. If these guys have been duping the world we need to know. You know we need facts right? Not atheist blog “facts” or ad home in……lol!!!!!!!!!!

  331. on 17 Feb 2014 at 10:07 pm 331.DPK said …

    So you are going to dodge the question yet again?

    I can only assume you have no answer that will not show the complete insanity of claiming there exists a god who is omniscient and omnipotent. Could this be?
    Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?

    Let’s see if your god can actual exist with the properties ascribed to him, then we can look into the actual historical facts surrounding the myths about him. Because if you cannot even demonstrate that he in fact exists, what’s the point?

    Come on… give it a try. All you have to do is type “Yes, you can certainly choose an action that is different from god’s perfect knowledge because you have free will.” or, “No, god’s knowledge is perfect, and there is no way that you could choose an action different from what god knows you will choose.”
    One of these has to be correct if your god exists. Pick one.

  332. on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:37 pm 332.A said …

    “Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?”

    I only give what is given.
    But lets stay on track, shall we since my question was first.

    Lets assume for a moment a hoax as unsteady Freddie implies happened with authorship of the Gospels. Why would they use Luke, not a disciple, a companion of Paul’s as an author. More so why Mark, a small player, not a disciple, is the scheme of the NT? Hmmm?

    To make the hoax effective why not claim Jesus penned one or more of the books and Peter one of the Gospels?

    Funny……..I am sure unsteady believed all 4 were disciples.

    So whadda ya say there Dippity Dew? Freddie is a liar or can you substantiate his claims?

    Your question is quite simple but we must…..must stay on track.

  333. on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:53 pm 333.DPK said …

    But lets stay on track, shall we since my question was first.

    Actually my question was first… Back around post 83 or thereabouts, so if that’s your critera… I’m waiting.

    “To make the hoax effective why not claim Jesus penned one or more of the books and Peter one of the Gospels?”
    No idea, do you have a theory? Lol.

  334. on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:28 am 334.A said …

    “No idea, do you have a theory? Lol.”

    So you still side with Freddie? This huge conspiracy to keep Christianity going? Lol! Well you do believe primordial soup wrote DNA code. Lol !!!!

    Evidence please!

  335. on 18 Feb 2014 at 3:22 am 335.DPK said …

    So you are going to dodge the question yet again?
    I can only assume you have no answer that will not show the complete insanity of claiming there exists a god who is omniscient and omnipotent. Could this be?
    Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?
    Let’s see if your god can actual exist with the properties ascribed to him, then we can look into the actual historical facts surrounding the myths about him. Because if you cannot even demonstrate that he in fact exists, what’s the point?
    Come on… give it a try. All you have to do is type “Yes, you can certainly choose an action that is different from god’s perfect knowledge because you have free will.” or, “No, god’s knowledge is perfect, and there is no way that you could choose an action different from what god knows you will choose.”
    One of these has to be correct if your god exists. Pick one.

  336. on 18 Feb 2014 at 3:43 am 336.A said …

    Oh Dippity Dew……you are such a shallow thinker and so silly.

    So you gave up? Can’t prove the Gospels were used as a hoax to keep Christianity going? And you want me to jump to other issues with such blatant liars? You must prove yourself Dippity and you are batting well below the Mendoza line…:)

  337. on 18 Feb 2014 at 4:42 am 337.DPK said …

    So, you seem to be saying that you’ve got nothing to offer? No evidence for your god, no explanation about how you can reconcile his supposed foreknowledge of events with the idea of free will, nothing?
    I guess there is really no point in discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.
    Let us know if you’ve got anything, or decided to actually answer questions honestly. Yeah, like that will ever happen!
    Great job, btw. Lol. Very well done, in fact.

  338. on 18 Feb 2014 at 11:53 am 338.A said …

    “discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.”

    lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!

    Oh Dippity Dew, first with Gospel being used to keep Christianity going now with the God hoax. Well if you decide Freddie is not a liar, and you have evidence of the hoax let me know slick.

    chow

  339. on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:14 pm 339.alex said …

    “lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!”

    which one? xtianity, muslimity, hinduminity, taominity? all of them can’t be right, but all of them can be wrong. which one, you moron motherfucker?

  340. on 18 Feb 2014 at 1:18 pm 340.freddies_dead said …

    326.freddies_dead said …

    In a bunch more posts. A the lying prick said …

    Some more shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  341. on 18 Feb 2014 at 6:37 pm 341.DPK said …

    340.A said …

    “discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.”

    lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!

    Glad to see you admit it. I notice you offer absolutely nothing in response… not even an answer to a simple yes or no question that might explain the paradox of your god being omniscient with the idea of free will. Since you can’t reconcile the idea, I’d say yes, that certainly supports the idea of your god story being a hoax. Wanna debunk it? Simple enough… answer the question:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Now, while the idea of a god with perfect foreknowledge itself does not automatically discount the idea of god, it does completely eliminate the idea of free will, and along with that of course, the idea of sin, or even responsibility for one’s one actions. Rather troubling.

    But, let’s look past that to the very idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being. If god know with perfect knowledge what will occur tomorrow… can he change it? If he can, he did not have perfect knowledge, if he can’t, he isn’t omnipotent. Indeed, if god has a perfect knowledge of all things past, present and future, and exists in all times simultaneously, god himself has no free will. He can only do what he has already done. To do anything else would negate his omniscience.

    Being powerless is a rather unenviable position for an omnipotent being to be in, wouldn’t you say?

    Now, let’s acknowledge what “A”‘s mindbogglingly idiotic answer must be, should he decide to give one (he won’t) it will be some version of “Well, god can do be both things because he is god.” Not unlike his recent pearl of wisdom that the authors of the gospels are who the bible says they are because it says so in the bible.

    So, enough of this idiocy, since “A” obviously has nothing to offer here….

  342. on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:43 am 342.A said …

    “I notice you offer absolutely nothing in response”

    You noticed? How observant! Well yeah, I give what I an given.

    lol!!!! I mean who needs to acknowledge conspiracy theorist!!!!!

    When you are ready to respond to hoax #1 as offered up by Freddie boy, let me know. Then we can deal with your hoax claim.

    Ah, the three stooges…..you are always so priceless.

    Dippity you can be Moe.
    Freddie can be Larry
    Alex….that leaves you as Curly.

    ROTFL!!!

  343. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:28 am 343.alex said …

    “Alex….that leaves you as Curly.”

    nice. and me being curly proves your god?

    your m.o. is well known here, you dumb motherfucker. you point out stupid shit and in your own fucked up mind, this somehow validates your god.

    i’m standing on the ledge, i’m throwing f-bombs, atheist this, atheist that, but it don’t do shit for your god. pointing out my bad manners don’t do shit for your god. pointing out that evolution is bad, don’t do shit for your god. pointing out the big bang, abiogenesis, ufonians, dna programming, all don’t do shit for your god.

    give it up, you dumbass. go ahead and point out ocean swimming. it’s been a while, you dumbass 2X. oh, and the 200 trillion xtians that atheists killed.

  344. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:38 am 344.the messenger said …

    316.alex, he means that we must not worship false GODs. It does not mean that there are multiple GODs.

  345. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:47 am 345.the messenger said …

    318.DPK, are you high?

    Jesus, the holy spirit, and the father are all the same person, just in different forms.

    The Jews worship GOD, but many of them do not believe that GOD came down to earth in human form as Jesus.

    Some Jews do believe that Jesus is GOD in human form, such as the messianic Jews. Plus the first followers of Jesus were Jews.

  346. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:56 am 346.the messenger said …

    325.DPK, the old testament prophesy of Jesus’s birth states a young woman will give birth. Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.

    Plus the prophet Isaiah was addressing the house of King David(David’s family)when he gave this prophesy, and is therefore speaking about a future descendant of David being born.

  347. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:00 am 347.the messenger said …

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. That does not contradict the biblical claim.

    Just because he has the ability to do something does not mean that he will.

  348. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:24 am 348.DPK said …

    Dippity you can be Moe.
    Freddie can be Larry
    Alex….that leaves you as Curly.
    ROTFL!!!

    The last desperate ploy… name calling!
    Brilliant. Your humiliation is now complete.
    That’s all you got huh? LOL indeed.

  349. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:32 am 349.alex said …

    “318.DPK, are you high?”

    says the same dumbshit who admitted to have spoken with god. same one who says that it’s ok for rapists to marry their victim as retribution. same, dumb motherfucker who says that eternity is just for a little bit. same one who says that yahweh = allah.

    the question is, messenger, have you checked with your homies lately to see if they even remotely agree with you?

  350. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:36 am 350.DPK said …

    318.DPK, are you high?
    Jesus, the holy spirit, and the father are all the same person, just in different forms.

    Then why did Jesus speak of himself in the third person? Weren’t his last words before supposedly dying on the cross “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Why would he ask his Father to forgive someone if he was the father? He would have said, “I forgive you.” You need to learn to think before you open your mouth. Jesus often spoke of god in the third person.

    “The Jews worship GOD, but many of them do not believe that GOD came down to earth in human form as Jesus.”
    That’s right, and I think they would take exception to you proclaiming Jesus as the god of the Jews.

    “325.DPK, the old testament prophesy of Jesus’s birth states a young woman will give birth.”

    Oh…. so now you are claiming that the immaculate conception is just a myth and the mother of god wasn’t actually a virgin in the current sense, but just a young woman??? Interesting.

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient.”

    But if he is omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent. It is impossible. If he knows everything that has or will happen, he cannot change it, without violating his own perfect knowledge. Therefore he is not all powerful, and has no free will.

    You are such a hot mess of contradictions…. virgins who have had sex, gods who are the same person, but different, eternity that doesn’t last for eternity… what’s next? I suppose you will tell us that during consecration, the bread and wine does nt become the body and blood of christ! Oh that’s right, you already told us that!
    Newflash for you messy… you aren’t a Catholic, you are a heretic!

  351. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:05 am 351.A said …

    “The last desperate ploy… name calling”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! The stooges are calling others out for name-calling. Well, we can’t all have the same class as Moe, Larry and curly! And we are all thankful!

    Moe you left out a whoo whoo whoo whoo!

    Messenger,

    How big an impact does being called a heretic by an atheist have on you? Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!

  352. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:20 am 352.alex said …

    “Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!”

    ima motherfucking expert on santa claus aint i? elves? tooth fairies? your god ain’t no different. you’ve wallowed in your bullshit pit for so long, you can’t smell the odorificus.

    atheists call you names because it’s a descriptive byproduct of your state. think of a jungle native somewhere and you trying to explain to him about your god. he calls you a dumbass for believing the shit and you turn around and call him an ignorant smelly uneducated heathen. see the difference? no?

    i call you a dumb motherfucker for believing a bible that talks about creating a woman from a rib, etc. and you call me curly as in three stooges and it’s the same level of namecalling?

    you a dumb stupid shit.

  353. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:57 am 353.DPK said …

    “Moe you left out a whoo whoo whoo whoo!”

    You can always tell when someone is completely and utterly defeated intellectually when this is the only response they have to offer.

    Well done “A”. But, it isn’t really your fault. God knew you would be unable to answer, so you had no choice in the matter.
    Lol indeed.

  354. on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:38 pm 354.A said …

    “You can always tell when someone is completely and utterly defeated intellectually”

    very true, when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten. But even more telling is when they try………so……..hard…… to change the subject. lol!!!!! Very reminiscent of a politician…..doncha think?

    And Then!……Suddenly.. ….they become so serious…..lol!

    Love ya Curly!

  355. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:04 pm 355.freddies_dead said …

    349.the messenger said …

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. That does not contradict the biblical claim.

    You’re the one claiming He will forget people’s sins. So that’ll be you claiming He’ll make Himself less than omniscient. Now you’re saying He won’t – so He won’t forget your sins whether that be pre or post death. You really seem to be confused about what you believe. Not surprising when you’re having to imagine it all in the first place.

    Just because he has the ability to do something does not mean that he will.

    Doesn’t mean He won’t either. Which is, of course, the (for wont of a better word) beauty of theism. God can do absolutely anything you imagine – because He’s imaginary. If there’s something you imagine He will do, you’ll claim He’ll do it, and if He doesn’t actually do it, it’s because He doesn’t want to – not because He’s simply a figment of your imagination.

  356. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:35 pm 356.alex said …

    “when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten.”

    newflash reminder. what’s the atheist(s) claim(s)?

    god is bullsheet.

  357. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:04 pm 357.DPK said …

    “very true, when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten. But even more telling is when they try………so……..hard…… to change the subject. lol!!!!! Very reminiscent of a politician…..doncha think?”

    Very true, and the irony is so strong you can smell it.
    So now you’re going to try to divert the attention to politics?
    Lol

  358. on 19 Feb 2014 at 4:09 pm 358.DPK said …

    “Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!”

    One need not be a “theologian” to recognize that many of the claims that messenger makes directly contradict the established doctrine of the Catholic Church that he claims to be a member of.
    So far he has denied the church’s position on transubstantiation, the eternity of hell, the immaculate conception, and a host of other articles of faith.
    In addition to that, he asks us to accept that an omniscient god can “forget” things, and that a god who know everything that will ever occur in minute detail, can decide to change it, thus negating his own perfect knowledge.
    Like “A” who’s evidence that the gospels of the bible where written by who the bible says they were is because “it says so in the bible”, the absolute requirement for accepting Messy’s reasoning is to turn off your ability to think in any rational way.
    Perhaps that is what “A” means by being an “accomplished theologian”. LOL

  359. on 19 Feb 2014 at 6:04 pm 359.A said …

    “newflash reminder. what’s the atheist(s) claim(s)?”

    I am so glad you asked Curly. Let me repost for your convenience:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Who can step forward and defend the atheist claim?

  360. on 19 Feb 2014 at 6:42 pm 360.alex said …

    “I am so glad you asked Curly. Let me repost for your convenience:”

    moron. inasmuch as you insist, me, freddie, dpk, or any other atheist DO NOT represent all atheists. unlike you morons, i don’t have to defend anything dpk or any other atheist in here.

    again, atheists by definition, do not believe in your bullcrap.

  361. on 19 Feb 2014 at 7:36 pm 361.DPK said …

    “Who can step forward and defend the atheist claim?”

    The only “atheist claim” that has ever been made here, or anywhere, is that there is no evidence to support the idea that such a thing as supernatural gods actually exist. Despite “A’s” desperately trying to change the subject, which as he himself pointed out, is the 2nd step of the obviously defeated, right before name calling (and btw… the 3 stooges really dates you LOL…. couldn’t think any anything from this century?)

    As to the authorship of the gospels, the historical consensus is that Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke were copied, in many cases word for word, and embellished with additional text to more closely align with the then current claims of Jesus’ divinity, about 15 to 20 years after Mark and the gospel of John about 100 CE or thereabouts.

    If “A” has some actual evidence that would dispute this, other than “the bible says so”, well, he doesn’t so that’s a mute point.

    Perhaps, since “A” doesn’t have the balls to actually respond to questions, or address the bigger issue of his imaginary god’s actual existence, one of the other theists would care to respond to my question, which really goes to the heart of the irrationality of belief in an omnipotent and omniscient god, of any flavor.

    God is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

  362. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:07 pm 362.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, he was speaking in third person because he wanted to further emphasize that he was still in the son form, also know as Jesus form.

  363. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:09 pm 363.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, Jesus’s last words were not “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”, they were “Father! In your hands I place my spirit!”.

  364. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:14 pm 364.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, are you stupid? I stated the following.

    Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.I was not opposing the fact that mary was a vigin when she gave birth to Jesus.

  365. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:17 pm 365.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, are you stupid? Omniscient and omnipotent do not cancel each other out.

  366. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:22 pm 366.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, when a person forgets something the knowledge is still within the person’s mind, but it is hard to access. GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it.

  367. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:29 pm 367.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, GOD always keeps his word.

  368. on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:37 am 368.DPK said …

    352.DPK, he was speaking in third person because he wanted to further emphasize that he was still in the son form, also know as Jesus form.

    Like anyone looking at him couldn’t tell that? Seriously, that’s the best you have?

    352.DPK, Jesus’s last words were not “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”, they were “Father! In your hands I place my spirit!”.

    Same difference… why would he say that if HE was actually god the father? “Into YOUR hands I place MY spirit” clearly distinguishing the two are NOT one and the same. Thanks for making my point perfectly clear.

    352.DPK, are you stupid? I stated the following.
    Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.I was not opposing the fact that mary was a vigin when she gave birth to Jesus.

    Then why mention it at all? You ask if I am stupid??? Why would you bring up a totally irrelevant point. The topic was that the idea of the virgin birth was originally not in the gospel of Mark, which was the first one written, and it wasn’t added until almost 100 years after the supposed birth of Jesus.

    352.DPK, are you stupid? Omniscient and omnipotent do not cancel each other out.

    Um.. yes, they do. If one has perfect knowledge of what will occur in the future, then one cannot possibly change it. Simple as that. If you can explain the dichotomy… take a shot. But if god “knows” an event will occur at a certain pint in time, then he cannot then change that, because that would mean he actually did NOT “know” the event would occur. His knowledge would render him powerless to do anything except what he already knows will happen.

    Now, stop calling people names. It is childish and unbecoming when “A” does it, and you are not as shallow and mean spirited as he is. Practice what you preach.

  369. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:20 am 369.the messenger said …

    370.DPK, he was in the son form, and therefore was speaking in that pov.

    I understand your confusion, my brother, allow me to enlighten you. Jesus was speaking in third person, and showing us that when we die we are placed into the hands of GOD and we are judged by him. Jesus often taught through example.

    I agree that the name calling must stop, but this is something that we must both agree to do.

  370. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:29 am 370.DPK said …

    Nice try, but no sale. It would make no sense for Jesus to ask himself to forgive someone or inform himself that he was resigning his spirt to himself as if they were separate entities. You are the one who draws all kinds of inferences from the bible. Clearly you can see that Jesus is plainly informing us by his words that he and god the father are different beings. Show me where in the bible it says ANYWHERE that god says he and Jesus are the same person (or being, such as it is.. Lol)?
    And the rest of your nonsense, no answer, so I assume you cede the points?
    Good, we are finally getting somewhere.

  371. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:41 am 371.the messenger said …

    372.DPK, in John 20:26-28 the apostle, Thomas, refers to Jesus as GOD.

    Isaiah 9:6 is a prediction in the Tanakh(a part of the old testament) about the birth of Jesus, and it refers to him as “mighty GOD”.

  372. on 20 Feb 2014 at 2:20 am 372.A said …

    “If “A” has some actual evidence that would dispute this”

    lol!! I don’t have to dispute anything you have not proved. Your consensus claim is drivle. Prove it.

    Lets try again.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Evidence?

    Oh and the Bible does not claim who the authors are. That is written by theologians! That is the whole issue silly! Saving to save you from more embarrassment Moe! Lol!!!

  373. on 20 Feb 2014 at 3:06 am 373.DPK said …

    372.DPK, in John 20:26-28 the apostle, Thomas, refers to Jesus as GOD.
    Isaiah 9:6 is a prediction in the Tanakh(a part of the old testament) about the birth of Jesus, and it refers to him as “mighty GOD”.

    First off, John was written almost 100 years after the fact.. 2nd, where does either Jesus or god the father say they are the same person? Nowhere. Jesus always refers to god as “his father in heaven” clearly an indication that he is a separate entity, in a separate place. God refers to Jesus as his son, “in whom I am well pleased.” Not, this is me, and I am pleased with myself. Use your brain…. If god wanted you to believe he and Jesus where the same being, he would not go to such extraordinary lengths to present himself as seperate identies, who even talk about each other as different beings. The fact that Thomas supposedly refers to Jesus as a god, doesn’t mean he is the same god! Lol.

  374. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:22 am 374.freddies_dead said …

    368.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, when a person forgets something the knowledge is still within the person’s mind, but it is hard to access. GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it.

    An omnipotent entity will find it hard to access it’s omniscience? Seriously? Your version of God is a big mess of contradictions, partly because of your desire to try and throw out the bad and only keep the good – an admirable action but ultimately doomed as the alleged word of your God doesn’t agree with your claims – but mostly because He’s imaginary. You’d be better off ditching the mental gymnastics – and the God you say you don’t actually need to believe in to attain salvation.

  375. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:23 am 375.freddies_dead said …

    369.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, GOD always keeps his word.

    Except we know this isn’t true. He doesn’t answer prayers despite promising to do so. Unless you’ve suddenly come up with some evidence that shows intercessory prayer actually works? Something you couldn’t manage on the “Prayer” thread.

  376. on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:38 pm 376.A said …

    “2nd, where does either Jesus or god the father say they are the same person? Nowhere”

    Do atheists ever check anything but atheist blogs? Lol! Atheist theologians……lol!!!

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30

    Jesus states numerous other times “If you have seen the me you have seen the Father”. Also He calls Himself ” I Am” which is a title for God from the OT.

    So Moe, got your evidence yet?

  377. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:20 pm 377.alex said …

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30″

    perfect example of picking and choosing. it’s been pointed out many times that hesus blurted out different crap, but yet you cling mightily and hopelessly to the one snippet you like.

    no, i’m not going to do your work for you. look it up your damn self and it’s already been pointed out.

    asshole.

  378. on 20 Feb 2014 at 4:09 pm 378.DPK said …

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30

    Ohh.. good.. “A” is back and actually trying to add something other than 3 stooges comments. Good for you! You are right and I am mistaken, Jesus is purported to say in John… the last gospel written about 100 years after the event “I and the Father are one.”

    Now this is the same John account in which the account of the time after Jesus’ death,initially described in Mark as an empty tomb and a mysterious young boy declaring that Jesus would be seen in Galilee had somehow transformed into two angels, blazing with lightening and earthquakes and Jesus having people touch him and his wounds to prove he is real. Also the appearance has magically moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the story has been enhanced with details and events never even suggested in Mark.

    Yeah, who would doubt the veracity of that. haha

    And doesn’t your same account of John also say that Jesus said;
    “just as the Father knows ME and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
    “I have authority to lay it down (his life) and authority to take it up again. This command I received FROM my Father.”
    ““I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

    You cherry pick one verse where Jesus supposedly says I and the Father are one and ignore all the others in the same context where he clearly speaks of the father as a separate entity.

    Didn’t Jesus also say (about marriage) “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.”? Do you think he meant they actually become the SAME PERSON?

    The limits to your ability to self delude are boundless.
    Now, let’s see about providing some explaination for the seeming impossibility of your god’s existence:

    God is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

  379. on 20 Feb 2014 at 4:22 pm 379.freddies_dead said …

    380.DPK said …

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

    Because they have a confessional investment to protect and they know that both answers leave their worldview in tatters – that investment busted like a pre-bailout bank.

  380. on 20 Feb 2014 at 5:08 pm 380.DPK said …

    “they know that both answers leave their worldview in tatters”

    Yes, I know Freddie… It is curious that they will simply ignore the question rather than question their indoctrination. Rather like the telling statement from the recent Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate in which they were asked “What would make you change your mind?” (to the topic of creationism vs evolution) Nye replied, “Evidence”. Ham replied, “Nothing”.
    Says a lot.

    We know these two are too cowardly to answer the question… but there must be other theists out there who are not as afraid of the truth…. How about it? Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?

  381. on 20 Feb 2014 at 6:13 pm 381.alex said …

    “This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?”

    a trick question. if god knew that some men are destined for hell, why go ahed with creation? this is where messenger invokes his jedi translation power. god forgot momentarily and forged ahead. oopsie, then god remembered and he switched enternity’s definition to ‘temporary’.

    har!

  382. on 20 Feb 2014 at 6:53 pm 382.DPK said …

    “…a trick question. if god knew that some men are destined for hell, why go ahed with creation?”

    Well, if it is true that god already has a perfect knowledge of everything that has occurred or will occur throughout an infinite time, then he has no choice but to go ahead and “do” what he already knows he “did”. To do anything else would violate his perfect knowledge. If god is indeed omniscient, that makes him nothing more than an actor playing a part already written… hardly omnipotent… actually completely impotent.

    Likewise, as you allude to, if god already knows everything that will happen in our lifetimes, even though it seems to us that we have free will to choose, the reality is that would just be an illusion to us. We could not possibly choose anything other than what god already knows has happened. Therefore, how can we possibly be held accountable for the idea of sin, or anything, really?

    Poor theists, they have a real paradox on their hands. And their answer? Stick their fingers in their ears and say “La,la, la… God can do anything because god can do ANYTHING.” Laughable.

  383. on 20 Feb 2014 at 7:22 pm 383.A said …

    “You are right and I am mistaken”

    Well yeah, that is always the case. Lol!

    So lets revisit another question you fail to answer due to the fact you know very little of what you speak. Let me repost for you”

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)””

    Do we have by evidence of this? Good luck Moe! Lol!!!!

  384. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:12 pm 384.alex said …

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)””

    i won’t speak for freddie, but i’ll admit, it’s dubious. just like i think, the big bang is dubious by a factor of about 5%, compared to creationism which in my book is about 100% bull.

    happy? how about the rock solid contradiction of an all knowing god granting free will? t or f?

  385. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:28 pm 385.DPK said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them… Do we have by evidence of this? Good luck Moe! Lol!!!”

    Well, you are confusing me with someone else, but the answer is, yes, there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
    Do you have evidence to suggest that they actually were? Your doctorate awaits!

    But, I forgot, you “make no claim” so as to carefully avoid having to back up anything you say. So if you make no claim, why do you keep bringing this up in a desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject? You are so very transparent.
    Let’s try one more time, shall we… ?
    Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?
    I’m really trying to make this simple for you, but this seems to be a real problem for you, “A”.
    See, I don’t care about who wrote the gospels… they are fairy tales as far as I’m concerned. But, if you have an explanation for the paradox above, I’m very interested. Come on, you’re a science guy… explain it.

  386. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:49 pm 386.A said …

    “there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.”

    Great lets hear it. I hope its not more lies you and Larry like to throw around

    Don’t forget to provide proof the hoax was used to keep Christianity going.

    Hint: an atheist blog would not pass as a solid source.

    “why do you keep bringing this up”

    so I can learn truth.

    “attempt to change the subject?”

    I didnt bring it up, Larry did. You will need to ask him.

  387. on 20 Feb 2014 at 9:55 pm 387.DPK said …

    As I have said, repeatedly, I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like, just as you do for evolution.

    If you don’t care enough to do the research, then don’t. But don’t expect me to provide you with an education LOL. Nice try, but everyone can see though your boorish attempt at diversion, and your schoolyard moronic name calling.

    Now, back to the topic of god and religion in the world, which is what the purpose of this forum is:
    Please explain: Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?
    I’m really trying to make this simple for you, but this seems to be a real problem for you, “A”.

  388. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:13 pm 388.alex said …

    “there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.”

    how the fuck does answering this prove your god? if freddie says he’s wrong, does it?

    your bible, the koran, the vedas are all bullshit. mispeaks, errors or even other bullshit i utter will not prove your god. no? here’s another example. the easter bunny murdered Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before they we two years old so that there’s no way they could have penned what they did.

    my bullshit is obvious, but it doesn’t change anything. your bible and god are both crap.

  389. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:46 pm 389.A said …

    “As I have said, repeatedly, I don’t care.”

    Well, I would believe you but you opened you pie hole and attempted to defend Larry!!

    lol!!! So, the case is more of you cannot defend the lies of Larry and then you bring more lies about what Jesus claims of God.

    Your Questio:

    “Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?”

    My Response: I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like. Lol!!!! I give what I am given.

  390. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:52 pm 390.alex said …

    “My Response: I don’t care.”

    the big difference is that you’re defending your god with nothing. your stance is that no matter what’s said here, you’re going with your bullshit.

    freddie and dpk can say whatever they want and i don’t have to do anything. our common position is that your god is bullcrap.

    so if you don’t care, why not go fuck yourself?

  391. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:04 pm 391.alex said …

    all atheists could be liars, criminals, and whatever evil tags you want to anoint them, but it doesn’t change your bullshit foreskin obsessed, jealous of other gods, murdering, forgetful, all knowing, free will giving, burning animal odor loving, skydad.

  392. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:42 pm 392.DPK said …

    “Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?”
    My Response: I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like. Lol!!!! I give what I am given.

    Unlike you, I HAVE done the research, and the research leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient is completely, totally 100% impossible. The two properties are mutually exclusive. So god, as you describe him is impossible.

    Now, if you don’t care, why are you here? I think you do care, science guy. I think you have a pathological need to try and convince yourself that your imaginary life after death is somehow not the steaming pile of bull rap that you really know it is.

    You don’t discuss anything in earnest here, so you obviously are not trying to convince anyone else of your point of view, so that just leaves you. Lol. You’re such a pathetic mess.

  393. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:48 pm 393.A said …

    “leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Awesome. Looking gorward to your proof. This should be good! Now using the scientific method proves this phenomena has never and can never be possible.

    Now keep this in mind. You do believe primordial soup can write high information codes in a cell therefore you have acknowledged the seemingly impossible. Got the popcorn……..munch…..munch….

  394. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:55 pm 394.alex said …

    “The two properties are mutually exclusive.”

    just discussed it with wife and other folks and it didn’t change a thing. i even asked if odin appeared, cured worldwide cancer instantly, moved mountains, etc, it still wouldn’t make any difference. such is the brainwashed.

  395. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:59 pm 395.alex said …

    ““leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient”
    Awesome. Looking gorward to your proof.”

    …case closed

  396. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:08 am 396.the messenger said …

    375.DPK, I understand why you think what you think, and I respect your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

    If GOD wanted us to believe that Jesus was not GOD, then why would GOD tell the prophet Isaiah to refer to Jesus(in the birth prophecy of Isaiah 9:6) as “mighty GOD”? And why would the apostle Thomas refer to Jesus as GOD?

  397. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:20 am 397.the messenger said …

    376.freddies_dead, I was explaining that when a human forgets something, the knowledge is not gone from the brain, it is just hard for the human to access. In a similar way, GOD will still possess the knowledge, but he will not access it, although he could easily access it if he wanted too.

  398. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:42 am 398.DPK said …

    If GOD wanted us to believe that Jesus was not GOD, then why would GOD tell the prophet Isaiah to refer to Jesus(in the birth prophecy of Isaiah 9:6) as “mighty GOD”?
    I dunno, maybe Jesus wasn’t the fulfillment of the prophesy? The jews don’t think so. Why would Jesus say “Into THY hands I commend MY spirit”. Why would he teach people to pray “Our Father, who art in HEAVEN” if he was right fucking in front of them?

    And why would the apostle Thomas refer to Jesus as GOD?
    I don’t know, why is “A” such a butt-hole? If he actually ever even said that, which is doubtful, maybe he thought he was god? The world is full of people who believed in gods who weren’t.

    You are just too funny Messy…………..

    “A” I have proved the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing. If you care to disprove it, so us all how God could change what he already knows will occur without violating his perfect knowledge.
    I already have popcorn… nom, nom, nom…. hahahahahaha You’re such a tool, up to your old retarded games. You have nothing………..

  399. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:52 am 399.the messenger said …

    377.freddies_dead, GOD answers all prayers, but he may not give us the answer we want, but he will give us what we need. He is not some sort of magic butler. He is a father.

  400. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:55 am 400.the messenger said …

    400.DPK, I thought you said that name calling is childish. Are you going back on your word?

  401. on 21 Feb 2014 at 2:07 am 401.the messenger said …

    400.DPK, the Jews asked Jesus how they should pray, so Jesus taught them the “Our Father, who art in HEAVEN” prayer. That is why he said that in third person. Plus he spends most of his time in heaven, so it makes sense that he would teach them to say “art in heaven”.

    Jesus spoke in third person because he was still in the “son(jesus) form”.

    Jesus said, “Into THY hands I commend MY spirit” because he is also omnipresent, and a part of him is still in heaven. Plus he is still speaking in third person.

  402. on 21 Feb 2014 at 3:38 am 402.alex said …

    ok, messenger. you’ve convinced and converted me. what do you suggest i do about these?

    1) my gay neice
    2) my daughter who thinks she’s capable of being president of the u.s.
    3) my muslim neighbors who are trying to convert me
    4) the science that delivered technology to make me comfortable, safe, and with enough food for everyone, insist on teaching evolution.
    5) my republican friends who ask me to sign their petition to ban gay marriages.
    6) the preacher in my town who invites me to their koran burning party.
    7) the rapist who violated a certified virgin.
    8) my boss who insist that i work on sundays
    9) my urge to pray for all cancer patients instead of JUST my beloved mother.
    10) the jewish boy who insist that jesus was just a man.
    11) my atheist friends who volunteer to help the non-xtian chinese overseas.
    12) the xtian down the street who’s trying to convince me that satan worshippers should be locked up.
    13) my indian coworker who insist on saying “the gods have blessed me”.

  403. on 21 Feb 2014 at 4:25 am 403.A said …

    “I have proved the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing.?

    Actually you haven’t but feel free to prove it anytime. You have a record of lies and misinformation….lol!!!

  404. on 21 Feb 2014 at 12:15 pm 404.alex said …

    “I have proved the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing.?
    Actually you haven’t but feel free to prove it anytime.”

    there you go, readers, the theist mind imprint is permanent. most sane people know that talking snakes and donkeys are total bullshit, but “A”, also known as hor/martin/ass, insist on demanding proofs that only he can approve, as acceptable. without his approved proof, his god must exist with all his imaginary, contradictory, yet magical properties.

    i would invoke set theory for omniscient and omnipotence, but what’s the point? i’ve said before that if allah were to show up right now, there is nothing he could do to convince these motherfuckers, and of course vice versa for the muslims.

  405. on 21 Feb 2014 at 3:29 pm 405.DPK said …

    ““I have proved the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing.?

    Actually you haven’t but feel free to prove it anytime.”

    Despite you empty schoolyard protestations… yes I have.
    Unless you care to explain to the class, for example, that if an omnipotent god knows perfectly that tomorrow an earthquake will level San Francisco, how could he then stop the earth quake from happening (say in response to prayers) without making his prior knowledge about the earthquake occurring, incorrect? Therefore, if his knowledge of the event is perfect, he does not have the power to change it.
    To put it in Alex’s perspective, if the set of all possible events is A.. and A is the infinite set, because god is omnipotent, and B is the subset of events that god knows will occur, then A-B is the set of thing that cannot occur. No event can exist in B and outside of B simultaneously. Therefore, IF god is omnipotent, he is not omniscient, and if he is omniscient he is not omnipotent.

    Now go away, you silly kindergarten logic is tiresome. You and Messy who says eternity is not eternal are made from the same bucket of crazy. LOL

  406. on 21 Feb 2014 at 4:25 pm 406.A said …

    “Despite you empty schoolyard protestations… yes I have.”

    Uh actually you have not. What you have proven is you don’t understand. Not surprising. Your education is very limited. Very elementary with simpleton like analysis. They are completely different scenarios.

    Early I again showed who you believe primordial soup wrote high information DNA code, but as you have demonstrated time and time again…..you have no clue how it could happen

    So there you go. Now if you can prove the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing do so. If not go back to making fries…..lol!!!!

  407. on 21 Feb 2014 at 5:49 pm 407.DPK said …

    “So there you go. Now if you can prove the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing do so. If not go back to making fries…..lol!!!!”

    I have, your saying I haven’t doesn’t make it so.
    Nice try but “No it doesn’t” isn’t any answer.. even on the pre-school playground.
    You are once again exposed as a complete fraud with nothing to offer.
    The soup again? Really, you are a one trick pony. Go ahead and give us your explanation for where this high information dna code came from… and don’t forget the evidence.
    Remember, despite your lies, I have not ever said “primordial soup wrote DNA code”. I have said “I don’t know.” You seem to claim you DO know… so show and tell time.
    While you’re at it, explain to us how god can have the ability to change an event he already knows will occur.
    Put up or shut up time…. LOL!!! My prediction, based on my perfect knowledge of the future, is that you will do neither. hahahahaha

    Your desperation is very funny btw… about the only thing you add to the forum… amusement.

  408. on 21 Feb 2014 at 7:13 pm 408.A said …

    “No it doesn’t” isn’t any answer.”

    I agree so why do you continue the silly argument you will not give evidence for?

    “I have not ever said “primordial soup wrote DNA code”.”

    So that was Freddie with the lies? Lol! Never argued against it! Lol!!!! aliens?

    You don”t know is just a way of bailing out, yes? You know next to nothing about God too so stop with your silly claims you cannot prove. I don’t know makes you look a little smarter.

    Oh Moe, will your comedy never stop! Lol!!!

  409. on 21 Feb 2014 at 7:41 pm 409.DPK said …

    “No it doesn’t” isn’t any answer.”

    “I agree so why do you continue the silly argument you will not give evidence for?”

    I have provided a rational and logical explanation as to why an omniscient god cannot be omnipotent. You have provided__________? Oh right, nothing other than 3 Stooges references. This is because you have nothing to counter. Simply put, if A is an infinite set of possible events and B is a subset of events a perfect god knows with 100% certainty will occur, then A minus B is a set of things that cannot occur. Since these things cannot occur, god is not omnipotent. PERIOD.
    Disprove it if you can, but your schoolgirl whining is not convincing anyone, not even yourself. LOL! This is why you offer zero counter argument… because you KNOW there is none.

    “You don”t know is just a way of bailing out, yes?”
    Not at all, “I don’t know” is a way of telling the TRUTH, a concept you have no experience with. Here is the fact of the matter… I don’t know… and neither do you. If you care to claim that you do… we are waiting for both your explanation and your proof. Since you have neither, stop embarrassing yourself… it’s getting really uncomfortable watching you squirm.

    “You know next to nothing about God too so stop with your silly claims you cannot prove.”

    Claiming I know “next to nothing” about a completely imaginary creature and you think that makes YOU smarter??? hahahahaha… Oh my goodness, you are more fun than monkeys riding bicycles!
    You know next to nothing about the magical powers of my garden gnome, so there!

    I am done with your idiocy. If you have anything to offer, do it, otherwise you once again show the depth of your delusion and desperation. I fart in your general direction. No go away or I shall taunt you further.

  410. on 21 Feb 2014 at 8:08 pm 410.A said …

    “I have provided a rational and logical explanation as to why an omniscient god cannot be omnipotent”

    um, no you haven’t. You have posted “I don’t understand therefore it can’t be?.

    Let me enlighten you. You have very poor logic skills. You need to read outside your narrow sphere of atheist blogs and read some writers you hate, that being theists. Your question is not new or even that difficult!!!!!!!! Lol!!!!!!!

    But I have seen your ilk before. You will remain ignorant because you are unteachable.

    so sad Moe….

    “You know next to nothing about the magical powers of my garden gnome”

    Uh huh, ok, back away from the ledge slllooowwwlllyyy there there Moe…….lol!!!!!!!!

    Been fun but gotta run. Late!

  411. on 21 Feb 2014 at 8:38 pm 411.DPK said …

    “um, no you haven’t. You have posted “I don’t understand therefore it can’t be?.
    Let me enlighten you. You have very poor logic skills”

    I wish you would enlighten me, but all I get from you is, …… oh that’s right, nothing. Make the attempt and lets se which one of us has poor logic skills. So far you are the only one saying “I don’t understand so god mustta done it…..” LOL.

    Take your shot. Let’s see what you got.
    But you won’t coward, just like you won’t answer the question:
    “Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?”
    Why won’t you answer?? Because yes, you lose, no, you loose. I suppose you are going to tell us there is a 3rd option? No, you will play coy and pretend you know things you do not know.
    Fraud.

  412. on 21 Feb 2014 at 8:43 pm 412.DPK said …

    “Been fun but gotta run. Late!”

    Be careful handling the rattlesnakes and getting that social security money from them old ladies!! I know you think your god will protect you.. but you see what happened to that Coots guy, huh?
    He thought he knew stuff he didn’t know too… LOL

  413. on 22 Feb 2014 at 12:50 am 413.the messenger said …

    404.alex, 1) Treat her with love and kindness.
    2) Help her peruse her dreams, but at a young it is a phase that will probable change soon, but never discourage a dream like that, because you never know, she might achieve that one day.
    3) show love to them and treat them well, but do not convert to that religion, because it is a religion of hate.
    4) life should be about treating people with love and kindness, not material possessions. Do not oppose medical, mechanical, or electric science. Evolution and creationism can coexist.

  414. on 22 Feb 2014 at 12:55 am 414.Angus and Alexis said …

    Silly messenger, therefore you are not a true(tm) christian.

  415. on 22 Feb 2014 at 1:16 am 415.the messenger said …

    404.alex,

    5) Sign their petition to ban gay marriages.
    6) What is a Koran burning party?
    7) Pity him and try to help him stop his awful ways.
    8) Try to negotiate with him, but if he refuses just do the work, GOD will forgive you if h=you have a good reason for working on that day.
    9) Pray for everyone.
    10) Treat him with love and respect, but respectfully disagree with him.
    11) It depends on what you are helping them do. If it is charity then you should donate money and food to them.
    12) Tell him that he should battle them through words and not violence, and that they should only be locked up if they physically hurt someone.
    13) Treat her with love and respect, but respectfully disagree with her belief in many GODs.

  416. on 22 Feb 2014 at 1:17 am 416.the messenger said …

    416.Angus and Alexis, how am I not a true Christian?

  417. on 22 Feb 2014 at 3:58 am 417.DPK said …

    Messy,

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30

    But then….
    “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”

    If Jesus and the father are one and the same, how could they have different wills? And why would Jesus ask himself to be spared his coming execution?

    Hurry up and make some more shit up quick!

  418. on 22 Feb 2014 at 12:27 pm 418.Angus and Alexis said …

    “416.Angus and Alexis, how am I not a true Christian?”

    You fail to see how in order to follow every part of the bible, you must break other parts.

  419. on 22 Feb 2014 at 12:44 pm 419.A said …

    “Angus and Alexis, how am I not a true Christian?”

    lol!!! This is the same Agnus that criticizes others when they judge if someone is a True Scotsman, Hitler for example. You know…….The No True Scotsman they like to claim of others? Lol!!!

    Have you ever seen a group of people who know so much about something they don’t believe in?

    Now she claims you, Messenger, are NOT a Christian because you “break parts of the Bible”. However she claims Hitler IS a Christian but he obviously broke many parts of the Bible.

    Is this typical atheist logic? Yes…….yes it is…..sigh!

  420. on 22 Feb 2014 at 2:42 pm 420.Angus and Alexis said …

    A, you fail to see the ironic satire i was intending to present.

    Messenger claims that many people were not “true” Christians.

    I posted a (invalid) true definition that would make HIM not a true christian.

    Get it?

  421. on 22 Feb 2014 at 3:04 pm 421.alex said …

    “Now she claims you, Messenger, are NOT a Christian because you “break parts of the Bible”.”

    then, illuminate us, dumbass. publish the motherfucking checklist that determines the true xtian. but you won’t, because ain’t such thing.

    you motherfuckers love to hedge and claim you know the criteria. hitler again? why not the fucking roman empire? almost all non-xtians, didn’t they kill a whole lot of motherfuckers back then? a bigger percentage of the total population than what hitler, etc have killed. hey, wait! the fucking romans believed in god(s).

    now, man up, beeyatch. what are the xtian determinants?

  422. on 22 Feb 2014 at 4:02 pm 422.A said …

    “I posted a (invalid) true definition that would make HIM not a true christian”

    That’s so cute. An invalid but true definition. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And I posted your hypocritical stand.

    Get it?

  423. on 22 Feb 2014 at 4:06 pm 423.DPK said …

    “A” with his advanced skills in logic and reasoning, after running away from his claim that god can be both omnipotent and omnicient at the same time without any paradox, now jumps at the cahnce to change the subject and proclaims:

    “Now she claims you, Messenger, are NOT a Christian because you “break parts of the Bible”. However she claims Hitler IS a Christian but he obviously broke many parts of the Bible.”

    (Note the underlying Christian hated toward women displayed by his schoolyard tactic of referring to Angus as a “she” as if to be a woman is the ultimate insult… very telling)

    What “A” with his advanced logic skills doesn’t realize is that it was MESSENGER who claimed that a christian is not defined by belief in, or acceptance of Christ as your personal Savior, but rather by one’s actions! Angus was simply pointing out that poor messy fails to meet his own definition. LOL.

    He is just such a hot mess….

  424. on 22 Feb 2014 at 5:42 pm 424.A said …

    Note the underlying atheist hated toward women displayed by Moe. He sees calling someone she as an insult. He has never been a insult to Moe.

    Moe doesn’t even realize how he sets himself up as a sexist.

    The name Agnus is typically she so I go with it. So sad Moe sees woman in such a inferior way.

    Interesting note woman complain about poor treatment at atheist conferences around the world. Absolutely horrible……

  425. on 22 Feb 2014 at 6:25 pm 425.DPK said …

    See how “A” lies about his intent in using the pronoun “she” to describe Angus, who he knows full well to be make, as a female as a form of what he sees, in his childish and immature reasoning, as a insult, not unlike calling someone “Moe” as a reference to a brilliantly talented comedian who made a living portraying a buffoon.

    Then, in his desperation to save face, he tries pittifully to revert the blame to someone else, in typical thesit fashion, hoping no one will notice…. har har har… and BTW “A”, Angus is a make name, not a female… I suppose your education is lacking…

    “Angus is a masculine given name in English. It is an Anglicised form of the Irish and Scottish Gaelic Aonghas, which is composed of Celtic elements meaning “one”, and “choice”. A variant spelling of the Scottish Gaelic name is Aonghus. The Irish form of the Scottish Gaelic name is Aengus. A pet form of the given name Angus is Angie, pronounced “an-ghee”, which represents the Scottish Gaelic Angaidh. A short form of the given name Angus is Gus.[1] The feminine form of Angus is Angusina”

  426. on 22 Feb 2014 at 6:27 pm 426.DPK said …

    “The name Agnus is typically she so I go with it.”

    It would seem you may add that to the long list of things you think you know, about which you are 100% wrong.

    ROTFLOL…………………………

  427. on 22 Feb 2014 at 10:26 pm 427.A said …

    ROTFL!!!

    Moe using a name I never use! Lol!!!!! Check the spelling Moe, Agnus is feminine and thus correct. Your hatred of woman causes your mind to see insult due to you low view or woman. Its an atheist trait. Get help and stop hating. Lol!!

    The consider this young atheist has two names and one is a made up Tulip who speaks for him/her! lol!!!

    Add that to the long list of things you think you know, about which you are 100% wrong.

    ROTFL, I luv you Moe. You make me laugh so

  428. on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:32 pm 428.DPK said …

    Agnus is feminine and thus correct.

    Except his name is Angus, not Agnus, you retarded twit.
    Never mind, your disdain of women is a well known Christian trait, starting no doubt, when your magical god admonished women to keep their mouths shut and never have authority over men lol.

    Busted again your stupidity and ignorance. Lol. Still wait g for your proof of your omnipotent omniscient god, btw….. Any day now, any day….

  429. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:13 am 429.DPK said …

    For those unfamiliar with the blog, here is how you tell when “A” is lying:

    Words appear under the name A, Boz, biff, curmudgeon, horatiio, xenon, 40year, and Martin. Not a complete list!
    Lol

  430. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:29 am 430.the messenger said …

    419.DPK, he did that to show us that even though he did not desire to go through all of that pain, he was still willing to do it for us. He that to express just how awful the pain would be, on the cross.

  431. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:40 am 431.the messenger said …

    420.Angus and Alexis, you fail to realize that some of the rules in the old covenant are not included in the new covenant. And that the laws of the old testament were completed and made new in the new covenant.

  432. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:50 am 432.A said …

    “Except his name is Angus”

    ROTfL! No, that is his/her Tulip, remember when Butterfly created a Tulip? Are tulips his or her? They could be BI and just remain gender neutral. What about his/her obsession with the Ponies? Are they gender neutral?

    Anyhow, as an atheist you guys need to reject you disrespect if woman. They are complaining and relating their stories.

  433. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:50 am 433.DPK said …

    Messy… YOU miss the point. If god the father and Jesus were the SAME being, Jesus would not have a “will” different from the father, and would have had no need to resign himself to the father’s will.
    Seriously now, how much longer will you ignore the obvious. If you told me Jesus and the father were both gods, ok, your silly legend supports that idea, but CLEARLY, anyone reading the bible would have to conclude that the legend shows they are not the same person, or being, if you will.
    Your ability to cherry pick and ignore parts of your own holy book is mind boggling.

  434. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:54 am 434.Angus and Alexis said …

    “No, that is his/her Tulip, remember when Butterfly created a Tulip?”

    Err no, my name is Angus, Alexis is the tulpa.

    Messenger said…
    “420.Angus and Alexis, you fail to realize that some of the rules in the old covenant are not included in the new covenant. And that the laws of the old testament were completed and made new in the new covenant.”

    So the bible is NOT the absolute word of god?

  435. on 23 Feb 2014 at 12:59 am 435.the messenger said …

    435.DPK, they do not have different wills. He was talking to himself, because him and the father are the same person. Jesus was simply expressing his desire to avoid the pain of the cross, and his determination to endure it for the sake of humanity.

    They are both the same person.

  436. on 23 Feb 2014 at 1:50 am 436.DPK said …

    As I said messy, your ability to cherry pick and delude yourself in unequaled.
    Impressive, but not in a good way! Lol!

  437. on 23 Feb 2014 at 5:08 am 437.Angus and Alexis said …

    When people say that Jesus did such a huge sacrifice, and endured more pain than anyone else…

    I point to cancer patients, who suffer more pain.

    And i point to soldiers who sacrifice themselves, and actually get a result.

  438. on 23 Feb 2014 at 1:23 pm 438.alex said …

    “He was talking to himself, because him and the father are the same person.”

    just like when you said you talked to god and that you alone determines who the real xtians are? no? i’m lying? you keep referring to NOT REAL xtians, but yet you can’t corroborate your xtian criteria with anybody else. go ahead you dumbass, list your xtian criteria and don’t forget the rapist shit part. and the yahweh equals allah, too.

    maybe you are god? except you’d have to beat your own ass for fucking around on the sabbath day.

    dumb motherfucker.

  439. on 24 Feb 2014 at 5:04 pm 439.freddies_dead said …

    399.the messenger said …

    376.freddies_dead, I was explaining that when a human forgets something, the knowledge is not gone from the brain, it is just hard for the human to access. In a similar way, GOD will still possess the knowledge, but he will not access it, although he could easily access it if he wanted too.

    Your continued failure to explain your God’s mental abilities through analogies to human mental abilities is utterly unsurprising. Aside from the fact that all analogies are inherently flawed, your main problem is that there are no reality based referents for an omniscient being. You are having to imagine what it would be like if such a being existed. Also unsurprising is that how you imagine this being is different from pretty much every other believer.

    If you disagree you should be able to tell us how can we distinguish your God from something you may merely be imagining?

  440. on 24 Feb 2014 at 5:06 pm 440.freddies_dead said …

    401.the messenger said …

    377.freddies_dead, GOD answers all prayers,

    A baseless assertion. All the reputable studies into prayer have provided evidence that this is not true.

    but he may not give us the answer we want, but he will give us what we need.

    The old “God answers yes, no, maybe” bullshit. Accepting every possible outcome as an answer to a prayer makes prayer utterly meaningless. It’s indistinguishable from what you’d get should no deity exist.

    He is not some sort of magic butler. He is a father.

    A vicious, jealous, megalomaniacal father according to the Bible. I’m just glad that He only exists in the imaginations of believers.

  441. on 24 Feb 2014 at 10:19 pm 441.Anonymous said …

    “but he may not give us the answer we want, but he will give us what we need.”

    Aside from the “yes, no or maybe” bullshit… this is specifically NOT what Jesus said would happen.
    “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
    and
    “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”

    Note he did not say, “Maybe it will be done for you, maybe not, and maybe you’ll get something else.” He said “Whatever you wish… it will be done for you.”

    Now Messy will explain to all of us why god didn’t REALLY mean what he said. Thank Jeehebus that the all powerful creator of the universe has people like Messy and “A” to explain to us what he ACTUALLY means! I guess the ability to clearly communicate also isn’t in his omnipotent toolbelt. But then again, he already knew that, didn’t he? LOL

  442. on 24 Feb 2014 at 11:47 pm 442.DPK said …

    443 above is me… Sorry, new browser.

  443. on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:55 am 443.the messenger said …

    439.Angus and Alexis, he was not only feeling the pain of being whipped, beaten, flesh ripped off, thorns in the head, nails through the hands and feet, but also the pain of ALL THE SINS ON THE EARTH.

    He went through more pain than anyone.

  444. on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:58 am 444.Angus and Alexis said …

    “He went through more pain than anyone.”

    Prove it…*sigh*

    “439.Angus and Alexis, he was not only feeling the pain of being whipped, beaten, flesh ripped off, thorns in the head, nails through the hands and feet, but also the pain of ALL THE SINS ON THE EARTH.”

    You are yet to prove that sins exist, nor is there any evidence that sins cause pain.

  445. on 25 Feb 2014 at 1:02 am 445.the messenger said …

    440.alex, I already told you that was a dream. Furthermore, I never said that I alone determine what a Christian is or isn’t.

    Alex, I have given many references from the bible, that specify what a Christian is or is not. You are oblivious to the truth.

  446. on 25 Feb 2014 at 1:25 am 446.the messenger said …

    446.Angus and Alexis, Luke 14:25-33 details the cost of being a disciple, and mentions carrying a cross. It does not mean a literal cross, otherwise all of the apostles would be walking around with wooden crosses on their backs. Jesus is referring to sins as the cross.

    This reveals that Jesus was not only carrying a literal cross, but also a cross of sins(mankind’s sins).

    Hebrews 12:1-3 characterizes sins as a hard thing to deal with. A hard thing to overcome.

    Sin is a violation of GOD’s laws or teachings. GOD’s laws can be broken and have been broken by all people at least once. That is what sin is, and it is real.

  447. on 25 Feb 2014 at 6:58 am 447.Angus and Alexis said …

    Going to need sources other than the bible.

    I am also humored by your claim of the bible not being literal.

    And again, i am going to need proof of sin existing.

  448. on 25 Feb 2014 at 12:28 pm 448.alex said …

    “I have given many references from the bible, that specify what a Christian is or is not.”

    you’re a moron. where does it say that allah is yahweh? why do you keep saying that some biblical shit is not to be taken literal? why do you say that eternal is temporary? see how your bullshit is laid bare, you asshole.

  449. on 25 Feb 2014 at 3:33 pm 449.Why even said …

    What is this fucking blog or whatever. This battle will always be happening until the end of time why even argue about it.

  450. on 25 Feb 2014 at 4:26 pm 450.freddies_dead said …

    451.Why even (drove by and) said …

    What is this fucking blog or whatever.

    I suspect that the lack of a question mark indicates this is most likely rhetorical but I’ll answer anyway.

    If you click on the link at the top that reads “About this blog” you would have found the following explanation:

    “WhyWontGodHealAmputees^com is a web site that explores the existence of God. This blog accompanies the site and explores God and religion in our world today.”

    This battle will always be happening until the end of time why even argue about it.

    I sincerely doubt your claim about this battle going on for ever, but we argue probably for the same reason you commented – because we can.

  451. on 25 Feb 2014 at 4:52 pm 451.A said …

    Why Even,

    This is not an argument in the classical sense. It is more luke moon landing believers vs deniers.

    Atheist are a very small cult. They are God deniers while the rest of us recognize the obvious existence of God.

    Now a genuine discussion can be had about which God is real and true. This is a legitimate debate that takes place regularly.

  452. on 25 Feb 2014 at 4:57 pm 452.Why even said …

    I now see. I apologize for my laziness. (forgetting to place a question mark at the end of my sentence) Now I understand the point of this blog.

    I would stay on this website for much longer but, I feel that my first impression will not bide well for later post that I might have. I doubt that matters to you though. I will now drift back into the darkest corner of the internet that I somehow was able to claw my way out of.

  453. on 25 Feb 2014 at 6:10 pm 453.Anonymous said …

    451.A said …
    Why Even,
    “This is not an argument in the classical sense. It is more luke moon landing believers vs deniers.”

    True… also like young earth creationists and evolution deniers.

    “Atheist are a very small cult. They are God deniers while the rest of us recognize the obvious existence of God.”

    Much like round earthers who were ridiculed while the rest of the world recognized the obvious fact that the world was flat and at the center of the universe.
    Hysterical that “A” after running away from explaining anything about the paradox of his claimed god’s properties, calls upon the argument from majority fallacy to justify his god’s existence. While at the same time ignoring the fact the the “majority” do not accept the existence of HIS particular god, while at the same time find no end to arguing, and gleefully killing one another, over the disagreement as to which one of the thousands of available gods postulated actually exists, and which ones are completely imaginary.

  454. on 25 Feb 2014 at 7:15 pm 454.Smelly ginger said …

    Atheism is the amazing truth that religious people don’t understand. Murcia was founded bai aged and that’s why it’s going down.

  455. on 26 Feb 2014 at 12:42 am 455.A said …

    Smelly ,

    You planning to destroy Murcia? Is it because they will not embrace orthodox atheism? Beautiful little town, learn to embrace it.

    Why Even,

    Your first impression was better than guys like Alex and Freddie who post here. You did fine…..chin up!

  456. on 26 Feb 2014 at 12:59 am 456.the messenger said …

    449.Angus and Alexis, the events in the bible are literal. What I said was that Jesus used metaphors in order to explain his messages to the Jews and gentiles.

    The bible is the original source for Jesus’s teachings. All teachings that are moral come from the bible.

  457. on 26 Feb 2014 at 1:22 am 457.alex said …

    “Is it because they will not embrace orthodox atheism?”

    give it up, you dumb motherfucker. just like your biblical morality, there aint no damn orthodox atheism. there aint no atheist pope/leader. you might insist, but just like the rest of your fucked up claims, you got no proof.

    because of your past tendencies, it wouldn’t be at surprising if you’re the same motherfucker, Smelly.

    just a reminder, you insist that an all knowing, all powerful god (with a grand plan) can give your free will and it’s up to atheists to disprove that it cannot happen.

    yet, you dipshits insist that unanswered prayers are excused as god’s will? and you think the readers are too stupid to figure this out? well, maybe the dumbfuck xtians can’t.

  458. on 26 Feb 2014 at 1:32 am 458.alex said …

    “…the events in the bible are literal..”

    casting demons into pigs and driving them off a cliff is literal? talking snakes/donkies? (fuck you and your plural). woman from rib? 10,000 year old earth? bleh, bleh, and more motherfucking bleh…………….

    bullshit fucking bible. you think you’re more qualified to interpret the bible more than the motherfucking preacher that died from the snakebite?

  459. on 26 Feb 2014 at 1:42 am 459.alex said …

    “Atheism is the amazing truth”

    you fuckers make everything so complicated. oooh, frozen waterfall, somebody designed it. oooh, the useless motherfucking appendix, somebody designed it.

    atheism ain’t shit and it’s very simple. no belief in your motherfucking god. got it? now, quit making up shit. enough of that in the bible already.

  460. on 26 Feb 2014 at 2:53 am 460.DPK said …

    “just a reminder, you insist that an all knowing, all powerful god (with a grand plan) can give your free will..”

    It is way more than that, it is an all knowing god who ALREADY knows, down to the most minute detail, exactly what will happen during every nano second of eternity, everywhere in the universe… yet you are free to do whatever you wish.
    The problem with this description is that there is no possible scenario that can exist in which any of us, including god himself, could POSSIBLY is any way, shape or form, doing anything different from what he already knows will happen, or has happened if that were in fact true. To god, the infinity of time would be no different to him than the past is to us. We cannot change what we already know has happened, if we could, we could never “know” what has happened. Likewise, god cannot change what he already “knows” will occur, because if he could he could not pssibly “know” it.
    And Astro’s reasoned response to this?? “You have poor logic skills.”
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…………….
    oh wait….
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahah haha.

  461. on 26 Feb 2014 at 8:08 am 461.Angus and Alexis said …

    “449.Angus and Alexis, the events in the bible are literal. What I said was that Jesus used metaphors in order to explain his messages to the Jews and gentiles.
    The bible is the original source for Jesus’s teachings. All teachings that are moral come from the bible.”

    Need sources of this that are cross referenced and are valid to the scientific method, or another accepted process.

  462. on 26 Feb 2014 at 1:23 pm 462.freddies_dead said …

    454.Why even said …

    I now see. I apologize for my laziness. (forgetting to place a question mark at the end of my sentence) Now I understand the point of this blog.

    Oddly defensive. I don’t recall suggesting you were lazy.

    I would stay on this website for much longer but, I feel that my first impression will not bide well for later post that I might have.

    Your first impression of us or what impression you believe we may have of you? Neither should stop you throwing in your tuppence worth if you want to.

    I doubt that matters to you though.

    Surely you should post (or not) because it matters to you?

    I will now drift back into the darkest corner of the internet that I somehow was able to claw my way out of.

    Fair enough, but thanks for stopping by anyway.

  463. on 26 Feb 2014 at 2:06 pm 463.freddies_dead said …

    458.the messenger said (to Angus and Alexis)

    the events in the bible are literal. What I said was that Jesus used metaphors in order to explain his messages to the Jews and gentiles.

    So the Bible is literal … except when it’s not.

    The bible is the original source for Jesus’s teachings.

    Correction, it is the only source for Jesus’s alleged teachings, as no-one else seemed to notice that the son of God had popped down to live amongst us for a bit.

    All teachings that are moral come from the bible.

    The Bible mostly just regurgitates what previous religions (Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian etc…) had already said about not murdering or stealing … only it gave people get out clauses for when they needed their God to demand that they do those things. Along with condoning violence, war, genocide, slavery and rape of course.

    The “might makes right” morality of your Bible is a truly appalling basis for any reasonable system of ethical conduct.

    Depending on which of the 7 versions of the 10(ish) commandments you choose.

    The first 4(ish) are all about vanity – I am God, no other Gods allowed, no graven images, no name taking in vain because I’m one jealous motherfucker who simply doesn’t like that shit.

    Then there’s the making a day holy for no reason other than I can and I like seeing you squirm – especially when you’ll wind up arguing about which day is supposed to be the holy one.

    Then you can honour your parents – even if they’re complete dicks.

    Thou shalt not kill … unless I tell you to (oh and it’s fine if I do it).

    Thou shalt not commit adultery, because, erm … reasons.

    Thou shalt not steal … unless I tell you to (oh and it’s fine if I do it).

    Thou shalt not lie … unless I tell you to (oh and it’s fine if I do it).

    Though shalt not covet (depending on your choice of Bible there’s 3 of these), because, erm … reasons again.

    It offers very little of use.

    Even Jesus’s messages were contradictory. Suggesting that “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” in 1 John 3:15 only to declare that “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” in Luke 14:26.

  464. on 26 Feb 2014 at 5:11 pm 464.BLAH-BLAH-BLAH said …

    1. The rebellion of Satan and the fall of mankind were foreknown and foreordained by God.

    2. Those who would become the people of God, the elect, were foreknown and foreordained by God.

    3. The crucifixion of Christ, as atonement for God’s people, was foreknown and foreordained by God.

    - the argument to end all arguments..if god knows all past,present and future why create earth instead of just creating a heaven full of perfect people that graveled at his feet and live a life of ecstasy? why create sin in humans but at same time know exactly how and what we will do with our lives…that’s kinda like telling someone, ok, were gonna play a game and oh by the way you have no say so what so ever i control every aspect of the game…not really freewill! However my point is why argue about if god is real or not, because if there was a god and he was all knowing then any argument you make is useless your life has already been laid out for you and no matter what you say to show he isn’t real or fight in his honor your story has already been written and nothing you can do or say will change it …so again why create life when you know the ending , almost seems redundant.

  465. on 26 Feb 2014 at 5:34 pm 465.Why even said …

    BLAH-BLAH,

    “…so why create life when you know the ending”

    This “oh so real” god, reminds me of four year old children they do the same thing over and over thinking it’s the most entertaining thing in the world. Thing is, it isn’t. I doubt that this “god” is a four year old but, according to how the bible portrays him, he sure sounds like one. Maybe this “god” just thinks like a four year old and does the same thing knowing what will happen in the end, yet is still entertained or at least satisfied.

  466. on 26 Feb 2014 at 6:32 pm 466.A said …

    “…so why create life when you know the ending”

    Why not? Its great! But if you are an atheist I could see your dilemma. No reason for existence, depression, the seemingly uselessness of life.

    Then again God doesn’t have a need to answer to me for His actions. However, glad He created His masterpiece.

  467. on 26 Feb 2014 at 6:46 pm 467.Anonymous said …

    “Then again God doesn’t have a need to answer to me for His actions.”

    The ultimate cop-out of Astroboy. “Nothing makes sense”… it doesn’t have to…. “This is impossible”… You can’t understand. LOL…

    The even bigger question in my mind is… if god is eternal and perfect, why after an infinite time (think about that… an INFINITE time) existing in a state of absolute perfection (wars and rebellions in heaven non-withstanding LOL)… what then CHANGED to make this perfect being decide things weren’t actually perfect and needed to change?

    Yeah, ASS… god doesn’t need to answer to YOU perhaps, but you are the one making a claim about his existence HERE… so sadly, you DO need to answer to us. Since it is clear you have no intention of every even attempting to do so, that renders you, once again, completely irrelevant. LOL!

  468. on 26 Feb 2014 at 7:13 pm 468.A said …

    Lol!!

    Oh Freddie mouse! Ok, you have been dying for me to give you attention so being the great guy I am I will.

    Freddie mouse, when will you be defending the many claims you have made? I destroy your claims then you run away….lol!!!!!!!! Both as Freddie and now as your return as mouse?

    Since it is clear you have no intention of every even attempting to do so, that renders you, once again, completely irrelevant. LOL!

    Freddie mouse spewed “what then CHANGED to make this perfect being decide things weren’t actually perfect and needed to change”

    Why did something need to change? Prove something did, oh wait, this is Freddie mouse….

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

  469. on 26 Feb 2014 at 7:31 pm 469.BLAH-BLAH-BLAH said …

    “Then again God doesn’t have a need to answer to me for his actions.”

    I’m actually kind of envious of religious people they can live a life so blinded but believe with there whole heart there is a promise land waiting and honestly that’s not a bad life. I’m not going to bash you and make you feel bad about what you believe really no one should do that…we are human we question, but i can’t believe this with my whole heart that a god created everything and knows everything and a guy died for me for my sins(actually the jesus thing was done several times before by pagans,but that’s another point)however my mind cant wrap around such things and never will and besides my life has already been predetermined I’m just riding this bitch out..Ignorance is bliss !!

  470. on 26 Feb 2014 at 10:19 pm 470.DPK said …

    468.A said …
    Lol!!
    “Oh Freddie mouse! Ok, you have been dying for me to give you attention”

    Sorry, Astroboy… 467 was me… chrome doesn’t seem to want to remember my handle.. anyway, your mind reading skills seem to be slipping.

    Freddie mouse spewed “what then CHANGED to make this perfect being decide things weren’t actually perfect and needed to change”
    Why did something need to change? Prove something did, oh wait, this is Freddie mouse….
    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well, do you agree that the earth and the creature that live on it had a beginning?? LOL… if you do, then there was an infinite time BEFORE that when it did not. So, why change what is perfect? You’re so silly.
    But let’s take your position and see where it leads. God has existed for all eternity in a perfect state. Then, after an infinity of doing this, fo some reason, he decided to change it and create the universe we know… and us. What for?
    According to you, he already knew it would turn out badly, and result in a large percentage of the human race.. his “children” as you theists are so fond of referring to us as… suffering eternal torment and separation in the fires of hell… which he also decided to create.
    Perhaps you are saying that because he already knew this would happen, he had no choice in the matter?? No, then he wouldn’t be omnipotent, so that can’t be.
    Perhaps you are saying he didn’t know he was going to do that, or how it would turn out? No, that can’t be because then he couldn’t be omniscient.

    So, let’s review, we went from a god who had already lived an infinite existence in a state of absolute perfection to a world of fuck all misery, evil, and shit so bad that he would be forced to create a virtual copy of himself and kill himself in order to get it sorted… and even then it would be a long, fucked up process. Well, clearly something changed, no?

  471. on 27 Feb 2014 at 12:50 am 471.the messenger said …

    466.BLAH-BLAH-BLAH, he did that to make salvation worth more to us. If we have to work for something, or overcome a great struggle, we will value salvation more than if it was given to us at the moment of our creation.

  472. on 27 Feb 2014 at 1:20 am 472.DPK said …

    466.BLAH-BLAH-BLAH, he did that to make salvation worth more to us. If we have to work for something, or overcome a great struggle, we will value salvation more than if it was given to us at the moment of our creation.

    How do you know that? I have a great many things in my life that I value immensely that I didn’t have to overcome a great struggle to have.
    My children and grandchildren, for example, mean more to me than my own life…. I certainly cannot conceive that I value them any less because I didn’t have to endure a great struggle to have them.
    Where is your proof for this claim? Besides, he certainly could have created us so that we WOULD value this supposed salvation without having to endure a great struggle, but he chose not too, Right?
    Plus, he already knows who will be saved and who will go to hell for eternity, so what is the point of the struggle? What will happen will happen, according to his foreknowledge and Devine plan. Once again, you are talking nonsense…. Just like your non eternal eternity, and your god who talks to himself in the third person and asks himself to please do things…. But only if he wants….. Hahaha…. You and Astroboy must be roomies in the same loonie bin.

  473. on 27 Feb 2014 at 2:42 am 473.A said …

    Lol!!!!

    DPK, Freddie and Mouse are all the same. Lol!!!! Should have known.

    “If we have to work for something, or overcome a great struggle”

    Typically, the left leaning progressives do not see the value in work. They prefer things be given to them. It like a kid who is given everything vs one who works for what they get.

    I enjoy laughing at the same bunch who believe THEY know what a deity should and should not do. If they were ONLY really that bright! Lol!!!!

  474. on 27 Feb 2014 at 3:20 am 474.DPK said …

    Astro once again demonstrates how to completely miss the point.
    About what you’d expect from someone who believes a magical invisible man who knows everything, but gives you free will.

    Go read the post again Astro, and maybe join us when you have a clue. Lol.

  475. on 27 Feb 2014 at 12:14 pm 475.alex said …

    “Typically, the left leaning progressives do not see the value in work.”

    lame diversion noted and ignored, Again!

    “I enjoy laughing at the same bunch who believe THEY know what a deity should and should not do.”

    lol, aint it? you morons lay down what the motherfucking god is supposed to do and when the foolishness is bared, you nervously laugh and blurt out “you don’t know god”.

    1. god knows everything
    2. prayers are always answered
    3. hell OR heaven
    4. god is good

    all bullshit and demonstrably false and even using the bible as proof. of course, the retort has always been: “contextual”, “not literal”, “misinterpreted”, “god forgot”, bleh, bleh, bleh.

  476. on 27 Feb 2014 at 1:55 pm 476.freddies_dead said …

    470. A the lying prick said …

    Some shit he bizarrely aimed at me for some reason only known to himself.

    And despite his desperate cry for attention:

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  477. on 27 Feb 2014 at 3:54 pm 477.DPK said …

    “I enjoy laughing at the same bunch who believe THEY know what a deity should and should not do. If they were ONLY really that bright! Lol!!!!”

    The only reason you could possibly have for laughing at someone who postulates how a being with the properties YOU claim he has (omnipotence, omniscience, complete benevolence, etc) would behave is because you disagree. If you disagree that means you ALSO claim a knowledge of how that being would behave.

    Indeed, but claiming your god possess certain properties, for example, is all knowing, you define many things about him. For example, you can’t claim that god is all knowing, and then claim a bible story in which god couldn’t find Adam because he was hiding from him, is true. You can’t claim that a god can know what I will do tomorrow, and then tell me I have the ability to change it. You can’t tell me that god knows what HE will do tomorrow, and then tell me he has the ability to change it.

    So….. seems the laugh is on you…. LOL

  478. on 27 Feb 2014 at 4:46 pm 478.alex said …

    “god couldn’t find Adam because he was hiding from him”

    that’s because god was testing adam even though god already knew what adam was gonna do/say, but because god knew the knowledge, he was obliged to follow thru or god momentarily forgot because he was too busy eyeballing Eve even though god has already created porn and have seen them all.

    har! what a crock.

  479. on 27 Feb 2014 at 6:45 pm 479.DPK said …

    Or, Jesus, who is “one” and the same with god the father, saying (to himself, mind you)… Man, this crucifixion thing is going to suck, if there is anyway I can let myself skip this part, that would be awesome… but I will do whatever I think I should, but if there is any way I could let myself off the hook for the bloody parts, I’d like that. But, I will concede myself to do whatever it is that I want. And oh, by the way, if I’d like to ask myself to forgive these people for what they are doing to me, so if there is a way I could do that, that’d be awesome too.
    Thanks, me.

    The idiocy is a never ending circus of nonsense.
    I once was looking a buying a property that was currently owned by gypsy fortune tellers. They asked me, “So, are you going to make an offer on the property?” I said, “Don’t you know?”
    LOL

  480. on 28 Feb 2014 at 12:21 pm 480.alex said …

    hey, figured it out. messenger is nephi’s long lost brother!

    (messenger)????who dat? wat dis? har!

  481. on 28 Feb 2014 at 7:14 pm 481.Anonymous said …

    Oh, Little “a”:

    I enjoy laughing at the same bunch who believe THEY know what a deity should and should not do.

    It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the xtian gauwd is a complete idiot, especially when it’s credited with OMNI-Max capabilities (sees and knows all, etc).

    As examples:
    When said gauwd created Adam and Eve (in its image) in the garden of eden, it knew in advance that we would fail to obey his mighty commands and our banishment would be assured. The xtian gauwd also knowingly created the devil with 100% knowledge that it would not be good for humans.

    Anyway, realizing that the Adam and Eve experiment had failed miserably, gauwd decided to have a redo by flooding the Earth and reseting the sin meter. Again, gauwd knew failure was 100% assured, so the flood was, in effect, useless.

    So, gauwd wants another redo. This time its son, Gsus, is put up on a stick so that the sins between Noah’s time and Gsus’s would AGAIN be reset. We know how well that worked out; but, more importantly, so did gauwd. What an idiot!

    Not much to an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful gauwd, is there? Complete failure. Did I miss something, little “a”?

  482. on 01 Mar 2014 at 12:04 am 482.the messenger said …

    465.freddies_dead, the events in the bible are literal, ok. All am saying is that Jesus used metaphors in his sermons sometimes, in order to explain his messages.

    GOD never said that genocide or rape was alright. He condemns all murder, rape, and genocide.

    Tell me, what verse supports rape? Show me proof.

    The first parts of the Ten Commandments are not about vanity, they about loyalty to GOD.

    The sabbath is a gift to us, it is a day of rest.

    If a father or mother does unholy things to you or someone else, then they cease to be your parents, and therefore you nolonger have to honner them.

    The verse says thou shall not murder. Get a brain you nincompoop.

    Adulatory is condemned because it is disloyal and an act of betrayal toward the spouse.

    GOD never stoll anything.

    GOD never lied about anything.

    If you covet and object then you become greedy and then you start to do bad things, like letting people Starve to get money. Greed is bad.

    Those verses are about self sacrafice to GOD. He is not telling us to hate others, he is telling us to love GOD so much that all other things seem hateful in comparison. Those verses can’t mean hate, because earlier he said that we must love others as we love our selves.

  483. on 01 Mar 2014 at 12:54 am 483.alex said …

    482.the messenger said …

    you’re a dumb motherfucker. call yourself a catholic, but you don’t know or even follow the doctrine.

    when bible shit is pointed out, your standard answer is not to take shit literal. so what’s left? god is good? god is loving? god is forgetful? he acts like it. dumb motherfucker is always doing shit even though he knew what’s to be. or maybe he’s just really powerless and just following some script.

    think, you dumb motherfucker. if your god is perfect, why is the imperfect shit his own doing? it’s a fucking impossibility? if course, you’ll never get that, coz you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  484. on 01 Mar 2014 at 3:01 am 484.A said …

    “Did I miss something, little “a”?”

    oh silly Freddie- Mouse or maybe Anony- Fred! Lol;!!

    I think the question should be “Did you hit ANYTHING”?. And the answer is no….lol!!!!

    You essentially just farted in the wind with much babbling.

    Why not answer many of the questions you have been asked?

    How about rationalizing Information Theory with DNA and primordial soup programmers.

    Defend your claim the Gospels have made up writers to “keep Christianity going”.

    Defend your fish fossil as a transitional fossil using SM.

    Nah! Run again…. Lol!!!!

  485. on 01 Mar 2014 at 4:19 am 485.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”
    Just as I thought – it all boils down to “We don’t know how life began so goddidit”. Give yourself a pat on the back and take a bow, moron.

    BTW, since you’re a “science guy”, you must’ve appreciated it when that other science guy, Mr Nye, destroyed Ken Ham in that recent debate. Right?

  486. on 01 Mar 2014 at 4:51 am 486.Anonymous said …

    littlest “a”:

    You essentially just farted in the wind with much babbling.

    I am sorry sweetheart. Where did I err? Perhaps your flavour of a xtian gauwd does not have OMNI-max capabilities? Please explain and expand……popcorn is on……..

  487. on 01 Mar 2014 at 6:43 pm 487.DPK said …

    “How about rationalizing Information Theory with DNA and primordial soup programmers”

    How about you just show us your evidence that proves exactly how that first life formed? You are the only one claiming to show how it happened. Explain it.
    Oh, and “well, I can’t think of any other way, so it must be magic.” Isn’t actually an explanation. Lol.

    We are waiting.

  488. on 01 Mar 2014 at 11:53 pm 488.the messenger said …

    486.alex, every claim that I have made about the bible has been backed up with text evidence. You cherry pick verses, but I recognize all of the verses.

  489. on 01 Mar 2014 at 11:56 pm 489.the messenger said …

    Everything that GOD does is to make us morally good, and to help us get salvation in heaven.

    Everything that happen is directed to achieving those goals.

  490. on 02 Mar 2014 at 4:03 am 490.A said …

    “We don’t know how life began so goddidit”.”

    lol, oh mousey! So silly. The God of the gaps theory is so childish! No thinking individual believes such silliness, well, other than atheists.

    Knowing how a painting was painted, a car was manufactured or how an F-22 Raptor was constructed doesn’t eliminated the designer

    You so silly mousey Freddie!! Lol!!!!!!!!!

    And, as a man of science, you should answer the questions I have posted multiple times. You should be able to show me a process that can fill the role of programmer. No God right? Then the mystical programmer must be in nature. Let see it!!!!!

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!

  491. on 02 Mar 2014 at 11:24 am 491.alex said …

    “Knowing how a painting was painted, a car was manufactured or how an F-22 Raptor was constructed doesn’t eliminated the designer”

    more of the same shit from you, eh? elliptical orbits require a designer? sand dunes? all the combinations in rubik’s cube?

    God of the gaps theory is so childish? maybe godditit is better? nomenclature, motherfucker. just because something cannot be explained, doesn’t mean allah did it, you dumb motherfucker.

  492. on 02 Mar 2014 at 11:33 am 492.alex said …

    ” You cherry pick verses, but I recognize all of the verses.”

    go fuck yourself. your defense is laughable. picked apart, your bible is left with nothing. even your ‘xtian god is good’ is bullshit. proof? prehistoric men, pre yahweh men, muslims, hindus and countless others. again, go fuck yourself.

  493. on 02 Mar 2014 at 4:08 pm 493.DPK said …

    “lol, oh mousey! So silly. The God of the gaps theory is so childish! No thinking individual believes such silliness, well, other than atheists.”

    Oh, so it’s not that? Silly me. If it walks like a duck….
    But, this is good news. This means that rather than you sticking your god into whatever gaps in sceintific knowledge there are, you actually have a definitive answer, with evidence to support it. Can’t wait! This could certainly be a life changing event, indeed, a world changing event.
    Tell us, Astro, exactly how DID the first cell develop, how did life change from simple forms to more and more complex, without evolution, of course… And don’t forget to show your evidence that supports it.

  494. on 02 Mar 2014 at 4:54 pm 494.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    lol, oh mousey! So silly. The God of the gaps theory is so childish! No thinking individual believes such silliness

    Didn’t you see Mr Nye, the science guy, destroy Ken Ham in that debate, sweetness? Did you notice that he did not install a god when he didn’t know the answer for something, LIKE HOW LIFE BEGAN. He simply said “We don’t know yet”. As a “science guy” yourself you must understand that it is a perfectly good answer since we are continuing to investigate and research. Warm comfort offered by easy answers should be of no comfort to me, nor to you.

    “lol!!!!!!!” and “Lol!!!!!!!!” are not answers but it’s good that you’re enjoying (pleasuring?) yourself.

    BTW, how about gauwd and OMNI-max powers? Does gauwd see and know all?

  495. on 02 Mar 2014 at 6:44 pm 495.A said …

    “we are continuing to investigate and research”

    Oh, so all the previous claims over the years here are just children’s stories? Lol!!!!!!

    “you actually have a definitive answer”

    Oh Dippy! Didn’t you read Freddie mouse’s post above? It is it is a perfectly good answer since we are continuing to investigate and research. It doesn’t eliminate God silly. Lol!!!!!

    Dippy, you heading to the beach to see if a Ferrari is a gonna wash up? Hey, gotta be possible right? If a programmer showed up in the soup why not a manufacturer? Lol!!!!!!!!!!!

  496. on 02 Mar 2014 at 7:25 pm 496.alex said …

    “It doesn’t eliminate God silly. Lol!!!!!”

    let’s take it to the next level. we both agree that the real God, Allah did it? no? sorry, i meant, the REAL GOD, ODIN did it? yeah, that’s it!

    dumbass, motherfucker

  497. on 02 Mar 2014 at 8:00 pm 497.DPK said …

    No one ever said it eliminates god, it also doesn’t eliminate Vishnu, or my inter dimensional sea turtle…. None of them eliminated.
    But which of them are supported? In order to seriously consider any explanation. First there must be some evidence that it even exists. So let’s have yours.
    How do you contend the first cell developed, and where is the evidence that makes it any more plausible than sea turtle?

    You have been hammered and embarrassed soooooo many times on this ridiculous point, you really want to endure it again?
    And what is your fascination with Ferrari’s coming out of the ocean? How is that any different from Ferrari’s magically being formed when a mystical being blows into a handful of mud?
    Lol.. You’re always good for a chuckle though.

  498. on 02 Mar 2014 at 8:59 pm 498.A said …

    “How do you contend the first cell developed, and where is the evidence that makes it any more plausible than sea turtle?”

    Do you believe in a sea turtle? I would imagine this is a magical sea turtle?

    I assume this is your conceived intelligence behind creation? Well, make your case. You actually make a little more sense. Lol!!!!!

    “You have been hammered and embarrassed soooooo many times on this ridiculous point, you really want to endure it again?”

    Well, when possess such an ability then I will reconsider. Its just natural selection at work Dippity Dew Da! Lol!!!!

  499. on 02 Mar 2014 at 10:47 pm 499.alex said …

    “Do you believe in a sea turtle? I would imagine this is a magical sea turtle?”

    i believe in the motherfucker. turtle took man’s rib and made woman. turtle loves him smell of burning flesh. turtle says “thou shell not steal”. any other questions?

    what about your creation? got proof?

  500. on 02 Mar 2014 at 11:49 pm 500.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    “we are continuing to investigate and research”

    Oh, so all the previous claims over the years here are just children’s stories?

    Sweetest little “a”. Don’t you understand science, “science guy”? The children’s stories are things like the flood and Noah’s ark, talking snakes, and other biblically inspired myths. Some xtians even think that gauwd knows and sees all; do you think gauwd has OMNI-max abilities? I know you won’t answer. You need the illusion to be alive for your 12 step sobriety program.

  501. on 03 Mar 2014 at 1:47 am 501.A said …

    “Don’t you understand science, “science guy”?”

    Oh Mousey…..you so silly. Bring back Freddie. Of course I do

    But your silly stories are asteroids with amino acids starting life, lightning striking the primordial soup starting life and my personal favorite…..Crick’s Panspenia! Lol!!

    Yes, I am a science guy. I can’t live as a fairytale guy like you! Lol!!!!!

    Get well freddie-mouse. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you on your sea turtle! Lol!!!!!!!!!!

  502. on 03 Mar 2014 at 2:32 am 502.the messenger said …

    495.alex, the bible is a complete text. If you interpret it as individuals verses then you will never understand its message.

    Stop cherry picking, and start thinking.

  503. on 03 Mar 2014 at 2:40 am 503.the messenger said …

    504.A, “Get well freddie-mouse. You wouldn’t know science if it bit you on your sea turtle! Lol!!!!!!!!!!”

    I have to say, that is a good joke. Good comeback brother.

  504. on 03 Mar 2014 at 2:43 am 504.the messenger said …

    503.Anonymous, if GOD is real, then so are the bible stories. I have given you proof of GOD many times, so therefore the bible is also true.

  505. on 03 Mar 2014 at 2:46 am 505.DPK said …

    Do you believe in a sea turtle? I would imagine this is a magical sea turtle?

    I’d say he’s a somewhat powerful, rather clever sea turtle. Would you define that as magical?

    I assume this is your conceived intelligence behind creation? Well, make your case. You actually make a little more sense. Lol!!!!!

    So you think a possibly magical inter dimensional sea turtle farting the universe into existence makes more sense than a natural, non supernatural process that is not yet understood? Ok. Well that says a lot. Lol!

    No, I in fact do not believe an interdimensional sea turtle created life. Know why? Because it is a silly idea and there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that such a thing exists… Just like your biblical warrior god. Lol!

  506. on 03 Mar 2014 at 5:30 am 506.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    “Don’t you understand science, “science guy”?”

    Of course I do

    Ummmmm, no you do not. Looking for Harleys on beaches with the hor username and now you’re looking for a Ferrari. Guess you needed to change that metaphor after a Harley did wash up on a beach.

    I am a science guy. I can’t live as a fairytale guy

    Says the little sweetie pie who uses a book of fairytales as his life’s guide. Whatever keeps the bottle away. Hope it’s still working. Maybe you can answer if the bible is literally true or just a collection of parables? Doubt we’ll see an answer here either. It would over expose the hor and crash the illusion.

  507. on 03 Mar 2014 at 11:29 am 507.alex said …

    “Stop cherry picking, and start thinking.”

    you dumb motherfucker. you’ve said so yourself, most of the bible shit is not to be taken literal. some xtians have moved on and ignored creationism and sexisms. yet you, you dumb motherfucker you, steadfastly cling to the notion that a rapist may marry his virgin victim as his punishment. you know of any country around here that allows that?

    fantasizing, bitch, motherfucker. start raping and see what happens…. i guess, in your sheep herding hood, it’s ok to do that eh?

  508. on 03 Mar 2014 at 12:27 pm 508.A said …

    “Looking for Harleys on beaches”

    Oh silly Freddie mouse! You and Dippity Dew look for Ferraris on beaches. Remember? Enough time anything is possible? Yep, right on this blog more than one of your personas uttered such silliness!!!!! All materials are available and no intelligence needed!!!! lol!!!!!! Oh…..so silly

    “Maybe you can answer if the bible is literally true”

    O silly Freddie mouse! ADD kicking in? You can’t stick with one issue? The question is the existence of God? Is your only argument is that a magic sea turtle does not exist? Lol!!!!!!

    You wouldn’t know science if it bit you on your sea turtle! Lol!

  509. on 03 Mar 2014 at 2:39 pm 509.DPK said …

    Still waiting for your explanation and evidence.
    Boy you can tap dance good… but dancing around waving your arms doesn’t make your god theory any more plausible that the stupid, laughable sea turtle hypothesis. So, once again, put up or shut up. LOL

  510. on 03 Mar 2014 at 3:06 pm 510.freddies_dead said …

    484.the messenger said …

    465.freddies_dead, the events in the bible are literal, ok.

    So the commandments to stone people to death for various transgressions are literal … or are they just metaphors again? Once more the Bible is literal … except when messy says it’s not.

    All am saying is that Jesus used metaphors in his sermons sometimes, in order to explain his messages.

    Seems like all He’s done is muddle things for His believers. The theist cherry pickers find it convenient though.

    GOD never said that genocide or rape was alright. He condemns all murder, rape, and genocide.

    Except when he tells His followers to commit genocide, ala the Amalekites:

    “2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

    cont’d…

  511. on 03 Mar 2014 at 3:09 pm 511.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Tell me, what verse supports rape? Show me proof.

    We’ll start with Judges 21:10-24 where there’s some more genocide first. The inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead are slaughtered except for the virgins who are kidnapped and given to the tribe of Benjamin so that they can be forcibly used as wives – that’s rape right there messy. Of course the kidnapped virgins aren’t enough so the elders of Israel tell them to hide out in the vineyards so they can kidnap the daughters of Shiloh to be their wives – more rape.

    Numbers 31:7-18 where the children of Israel war against the Midianites (more God commanded genocide). Note verse 18 “But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

    Deuteronomy 20:10-14 whereby you offer a city peace and, should they agree you make them slaves. Should they disagree you slaughter the men and keep the women as spoils.

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14 where you get to take a captive that takes your fancy and force her to marry you.

    Exodus 21:7-11 where you get to sell your own daughter as a slave who can be forcibly married. Oops.

    Zechariah 14:1-2 where God gathers all the nations against Jerusalem and God will make sure the women get “ravished”, uber-rapey.

    cont’d…

  512. on 03 Mar 2014 at 3:10 pm 512.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    The first parts of the Ten Commandments are not about vanity, they about loyalty to GOD.

    Because He’s jealous and vain. He just can’t countenance you picking another God. Any God that demands loyalty due to their own jealousy wouldn’t be a God worth worshipping even if it wasn’t just an imaginary construct.

    The sabbath is a gift to us, it is a day of rest.

    Which day is the right one messy? Why wouldn’t an allegedly benevolent God make it completely clear which day is the “real” day of rest – especially if picking the wrong one means an eternity/long weekend in Hell?

    If a father or mother does unholy things to you or someone else, then they cease to be your parents, and therefore you nolonger have to honner them.

    So sin defeats biology now? And when your idiot parents are no longer your real parents does that free you from original sin? After all you’ve just cut the line from Adam. Cue “metaphor”.

    The verse says thou shall not murder. Get a brain you nincompoop.

    Oh the irony. The hebrew verb “Retzach” actually has several meanings that describe destructive activity including “to murder”, “to kill”, “to break”, “to dash to pieces”, “to slay” etc… This leads to different translations being used in different Bibles. Do you have any sort of argument to suggest your claim of “murder” is any more valid than the use of “kill”. Even so, God does murder. He’s omniscient and has a plan so everytime He takes a life He does so with malice aforethought. But of course whenever God does it or commands it to be done it’s prefectly fine. Go thesitic moral relativism.

    Adulatory is condemned because it is disloyal and an act of betrayal toward the spouse.

    And your God knows all about betrayal, being the entity that created it, then planned for people to commit acts of it before punishing them for doing exactly as He planned for them to do. Hell, without Judas’ act of betrayal there’s no redemption. Yet betrayal is bad. Go contradictions!

    GOD never stoll anything.

    Tell that to the people who drowned in the flood when God stole their lives because He couldn’t think of a better way for an omnipotent and omnibenevolent entity to get rid of sin. It’s especially amusing that He categorically failed in His attempt – you’d think an omniscient entity would know it wouldn’t work and that an omnipotent entity would be able to carry it off.

    GOD never lied about anything.

    1 Kings 22:23
    2 Chronicles 18:22
    Jeremiah 4:10
    Jeremiah 20:7
    Ezekiel 14:9
    2 Thessalonians 2:11

    Those lying spirits and deceptions sent by God, yes? They are lies.

    If you covet and object then you become greedy and then you start to do bad things, like letting people Starve to get money. Greed is bad.

    So jealousy is wrong? Wanting what others have is a form of jealousy. It seems your God thinks it’s fine and points out that He’s jealous – odd to punish others for being just like Him.

    Those verses are about self sacrafice to GOD. He is not telling us to hate others, he is telling us to love GOD so much that all other things seem hateful in comparison. Those verses can’t mean hate, because earlier he said that we must love others as we love our selves.

    Just look at the mental gymnastics. “When it uses the word hate it doesn’t mean actual hate, just something like hate, which isn’t hate it’s love, it just looks like hate to people who don’t understand how to cherry pick correctly.”

  513. on 03 Mar 2014 at 3:33 pm 513.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    look for Ferraris on beaches. …..Enough time anything is possible?

    Sweet cheeks, are you using he information system that makes you a “science guy”? Apparently NOT!! Find me the DNA of a Harley or a Ferrari. Let me know if you’ve seen these vehicle reproduce. Very poor analogy, try again. Maybe the Ferrari becomes a Hummer? Hey, I’ve actually seen sea turtles wash up on beaches. Is that what your trying to get around to?

    You can’t stick with one issue? The question is the existence of God?

    little “a”, sweetness, I know you’re an absolute authority on the existence of a god so I wanted to know which one to believe in. Making the wrong choice is likely to piss off god and my free pass to eternity will be revoked. Even those xtians have soooo many choices. Does it come down to which one makes you feel good?

  514. on 03 Mar 2014 at 8:12 pm 514.A said …

    “God does murder”

    Um, God cannot murderer. He gives all life and can legally take it. Sorry although atheist believe “anything is possible” that is not by definition. :)

    “Find me the DNA of a Harley or a Ferrari.”

    Silly Freddie mouse, they do not have DNA! lol!! Find mw DNA in the primordial soup before any living thing existed !!!! Lol!!! You walked right onto that. However all processed and materials ARE available to create a Ferrari, well, other than a designer.

    “Does it come down to which one makes you feel good?”

    Oh silly Freddie mouse. Since now you want to move on to WHICH God, does that mean you are now a theist? Or is that ADD kicking in? Posting under both names I see……lol!!!!

  515. on 03 Mar 2014 at 8:30 pm 515.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    He gives all life and can legally take it.

    So, sweetie, you’re apparently saying gauwd is a self assigned lawyer as well as judge- jury- executioner. Also a programmer!! Does gauwd know and see all or is that too much information to squeeze onto the resume?

    Since now you want to move on to WHICH God, does that mean you are now a theist?

    No, sorry, sweetie. Wondering how a “science guy” like yourself takes to a gauwd? Must be some sort of mechanism. Some find salvation at the bottom of a bottle….Would that be YOU?

    I notice your “lol’s” have not been capitalized lately. Are you OK, sweetie?

  516. on 03 Mar 2014 at 8:53 pm 516.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    mw DNA

    Oppps, sweetness, looks like you completely stepped on it. Better get to the biffy do some scraping. What better way to examine common descent than to perform comparative sequence analysis. Sometimes, “science guy”, you truly surprise and amaze. That must’ve been a mistake on your part. ;-)

  517. on 03 Mar 2014 at 9:07 pm 517.A said …

    “mw DNA”

    lol!!!!!! Yeah I am a science guy with big hands typing on a PDA. Have one yet?? Lol!!!!!!! Hey, but with you crazy beliefs we could just randomly punch keys and eventually type out a great classical Greek tragedy!!!!!

    “I notice your “lol’s” have not been capitalized lately”

    Absolutely loving life. Another subject change? LOL!!!!!!!!

    “you’re apparently saying gauwd is a self assigned lawyer”

    Not sure, Mr Gauwd with a law firm? Another subject change?
    LOL!!!!!!!! This is too easy. Come on Freddie mouse, provide something here……

  518. on 03 Mar 2014 at 9:42 pm 518.Anonymous said …

    little “a”, since it was YOU who brought it up:

    mw DNA

    Sweetness, don’t accuse me of a topic change. Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.
    Unless you want to debate an OMNI-max god. How you came to find god/gauwd?
    How god gets a free pass for killing all those innocent babies (think flood or one of his mandated genocides here) and telling people to rape and plunder. The old testament bastard lost his edge in the revised edition, didn’t he?
    Pick your poison, sweetie. Let’s open the discussion to all. Invite Biff and Xenon. Use your old username Horatio. Can’t forget about Castbound, what a classic buffon with his epic posting failures.

    Glad to see your LOL has been re-established, BTW!! Keep up the good work with that.

  519. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:34 am 519.A said …

    “LOL has been re-established, BTW!! Keep up the good work with that.”

    You got it cowboy! But only when you are funny or you get you sea turtle caught! Lol!!!!!!

  520. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:42 am 520.A said …

    “Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.”

    OK

  521. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:47 am 521.A said …

    freedie mouse since you failed so badly in God discussions I will let you off. Can we start with the fish bump? That is priceless? Bring in freddie so we can have more fun!

  522. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:49 am 522.A said …

    You know, I like sweetness. Had a friend who played football with the same nick. I might go with that. Thx freddie mouse!

  523. on 04 Mar 2014 at 2:10 am 523.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    You can’t stick with one issue? The question is the existence of God?

    Sweetie pie, this is what you wrote in post #508. Remember? Scroll up and check for yourself if you don’t believe me.

    Then you changed gears in post #521 and came up with:

    mouse since you failed so badly in God discussions I will let you off

    Please don’t. I need to be accountable for my statements and questions. Such as: Is god all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful? Now maybe you can describe, in your own words, the “essence” of your god and be accountable and, more importantly, focused. I am waiting.

    “Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.”

    OK

    My position is there are numerous genetic markers that span all life -thanks to evolution. An excellent read would be “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin. And you, sweetie pie, say that goddidit. There’s reason and then there’s faith, right “science guy”?

  524. on 04 Mar 2014 at 2:51 am 524.Sweetness said …

    “My position is there are numerous genetic markers that span all life -thanks to evolution”

    Great Start! Now prove it is evolution. I am a man of science. Remember to use the scientific method, not the one you used for your fish bump. Lol!!!

    “Please don’t. I need to be accountable for my statements and questions”

    True but your only defense is ” We dunno”. “With time everything is possible”. You have little to offer. That is true of most cults

  525. on 04 Mar 2014 at 2:56 am 525.Sweetness said …

    Freddie Mouse speaking of DNA, your task just got more difficult. Check out the discovery made by John Stamatoyannopoulos at UW. As a man of science, I greatly enjoyed how much more fascinating DNA just became.

    That was some soup, huh? lol!!!!!

  526. on 04 Mar 2014 at 3:27 am 526.the messenger said …

    513.freddies_dead, the stoning was metaphorical according to the text evidence, so therefore the stoning events occurred but with a non literal stoning.

    When GOD commanded “Sam. 15:2-3″ he knew that they would fail to complete the task. Also, a military force of 210,000 cannot possibly kill the population of and entire people in one battle.

  527. on 04 Mar 2014 at 3:44 am 527.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    speaking of DNA, your task just got more difficult. Check out the discovery made by John Stamatoyannopoulos at UW.

    Sweetie pie, as a “science guy” you realize that the search for answers will never end. This wonderful discovery shows how science continues to understand….objectively, rationally, logically. And what did John Stamatoyannopoulos say about the discovery:

    “DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

    Sweetie: Are you saying nature =gauwd? Are we getting down to the “essence of your belief?

    “My position is there are numerous genetic markers that span all life -thanks to evolution”

    Great Start! Now prove it is evolution.

    Well, for starters we can assume that IF evolution were true, then we would have genetic markers across all lifeforms. And guess what, peaches, we do.
    If a god created life, I would assume the god would have created lifeforms from scratch unless it was a god that wanted to make it appear that evolution was true. Maybe you can expand on this a little, since nobody seems to know exactly what you believe.

  528. on 04 Mar 2014 at 3:59 am 528.the messenger said …

    514.freddies_dead, Judges 21:10-24 does not say that the Israelites have any right to rape them. The “rape statement” of yours is just a lie.

    The Midianites were killed because of their cruelty towards the Israelites, but some of them were spared(which shows mercy). The Midianities were extremely cruel and savage people, who engaged in awful, heinous acts. GOD sentenced them to die for their sins.

    GOD never commanded the Israelites to rape them though.

    Deuteronomy 20:10-14 has nothing to do with rape either. It simply says that all of them belong to the Israelites.

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14 stated that they were suppose to let the women mourn their losses(that is kind), and after that is finished then the man may marry her. Then it states that if the man had sex with her he is not allowed to sell her or treat her as a slave.

  529. on 04 Mar 2014 at 11:02 am 529.alex said …

    poor messenger, in his fucked up fellowship of uno. even among his fellow catholics, he cannot find anybody who’d share his belief that all animals descended from the ark survivors and that rapists may marry their victims (if they’re pure).

    so how’s that working out for you? you self professed bible interpreter, ye the expert motherfucker that discerns metaphorical from actual biblical text?

    you call yourself a catholic, but your shit doesn’t even jive with the pope. give it up bitch. who you tryna to convince here? the other dimwit hor? maybe you’re just tryna work up the courage to rape a virgin, but all youse got are sheep in yer nek of de woods.

  530. on 04 Mar 2014 at 12:19 pm 530.freddies_dead said …

    528.the messenger said …

    513.freddies_dead, the stoning was metaphorical according to the text evidence, so therefore the stoning events occurred but with a non literal stoning.

    What the galloping fuck is that word salad supposed to mean? The stoning events occurred but with a non literal stoning? How the hell can you have a non literal stoning event messy? You’ve simply resorted to writing rubbish because you know you’re fucked. The Bible commands death by stoning not a non literal stoning. What do you think they did? Shout “stone” at them until they apologised? Stop being ridiculous.

    When GOD commanded “Sam. 15:2-3? he knew that they would fail to complete the task. Also, a military force of 210,000 cannot possibly kill the population of and entire people in one battle.

    1 Sam. 15:18 reads “And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.” You’re a liar messy. I also love the way you diminish your God by suggesting a force commanded by an omnipotent deity couldn’t do what that deity commands. You know what they failed to do, messy? They spared one man. Agag, the king of the Amalekites. That’s it, everyone else was slaughtered. They also kept the best of the sheep and the oxen, that’s how they failed your God, they weren’t destructive enough.

  531. on 04 Mar 2014 at 12:26 pm 531.freddies_dead said …

    530.the messenger said …

    It seems that WordPress doesn’t like it when the same word is used again and again so I’ve had to change some to get it through.

    514.freddies_dead, Judges 21:10-24 does not say that the Israelites have any right to rape them. The “r*pe statement” of yours is just a lie.

    More drivel. What the fuck do you think happens to virgin girls when they’re kidnapped and forced to marry the men who slaughtered their families? You think those men never had sex with those girls? You think those girls gave consent? You’re an idiot if you think that’s what happened.

    The Midianites were killed because of their cruelty towards the Israelites, but some of them were spared(which shows mercy). The Midianities were extremely cruel and savage people, who engaged in awful, heinous acts. GOD sentenced them to die for their sins.

    GOD never commanded the Israelites to ra*e them though.

    I don’t give a shit how awful the Midianites were alleged to have been, once again, when you kidnap the virgins and give them to the men who slaughtered their families the only way they’re having sex is by force. Commanded and condoned by your God.

    Deuteronomy 20:10-14 has nothing to do with rape either. It simply says that all of them belong to the Israelites.

    Fuck me you’re deliberately blind. You can keep the women – the spoils of war. You think they were kept to do the cleaning? The washing? Bullshit.

    Deuteronomy 21:10-14 stated that they were suppose to let the women mourn their losses(that is kind), and after that is finished then the man may marry her.

    You think a month of mourning is a kindness? You think it means the woman will happily consent to marry – and have sex with – the man who helped slaughter her family/people? You really are naive. The only way that’s happening is by force.

    Then it states that if the man had sex with her he is not allowed to sell her or treat her as a slave.

    Oh, how kind? (<– sarcasm) You've had your family/people slaughtered, been forced to marry someone responsible for that slaughter and now he's decided it's no fun raping you anymore but, don't worry, he can't sell you into slavery. Such compassion.

    Your Bible is a cesspit of morality and your pathetic attempts to justify the horrors it commands is truly disgusting.

  532. on 04 Mar 2014 at 12:27 pm 532.freddies_dead said …

    523.A the lying prick said …

    freedie mouse since you failed so badly in God discussions I will let you off. Can we start with the fish bump? That is priceless? Bring in freddie so we can have more fun!

    Go fuck yourself you lying prick.

  533. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:29 pm 533.Sweetness said …

    “you realize that the search for answers will never end. This wonderful discovery shows how science continues to understand….objectively, rationally, logically.”

    Yes, thank you.

    “Well, for starters we can assume that IF evolution were true, then we would have genetic markers across all lifeforms.”

    Actually if we assume God is true, we would have genetic markers. Just as we follow the ascent of the modern automobile from the model T to the Mosler 900S. Looking through the history we see major upgrades yet they share pistons, cam shafts, tires etc. Some adapted to their environments such as police cars, NASCAR, tractors etc. Some models even died off such as the Dusenberg. These similarities are a results of refinements by engineers with an desired design.

    “unless it was a god that wanted to make it appear that evolution was true.”

    ROTFL!!!!!, there is zero evidence to support macroevolution. You think that would be enough. Remember, it was the God haters who believed in a static universe. The reason you can’t see truth is because every hypothesis is acceptable with the exception one. One hypothesis is that life began on Mars. Yes, Mars! lol!! The flexibility of evolutionary thought is to be admired.

  534. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:38 pm 534.alex said …

    “Yes, Mars! lol!! The flexibility of evolutionary thought is to be admired.”

    yes, lordy, lordy. woman from a rib. most flexible indeed. get the fuck out of here.

  535. on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:52 pm 535.alex said …

    “The reason you can’t see truth is because every hypothesis is acceptable with the exception one.”

    wrong again. aliens: not acceptable. xtian god creation? not acceptable. man from apes? ignorantly laughable and no, not acceptable.

    you got caught lying again…. give it up hor/martin/ass……

    reminder. omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive, you moron. do i have to prove to you that yahweh and thor can’t both exist?

  536. on 04 Mar 2014 at 3:28 pm 536.Anonymous said …

    little “a” brings up research by John Stamatoyannopoulos as an argument for his position. John Stamatoyannopoulos says:

    “DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

    Ooops. Epic failure, Sweetie pie. May I? OK, here goes….ROFLMFAO!!!!!! Thanks, sweetness.

    Working from a weak and crumbling position, sweetie pie suggests that the existence of internal combustion engines is an argument against evolution and for gauwd. And this idiot says he is a “science guy”???? No, Sweetie, that would be a piss poor ANALOGY. No DNA in an engine, unable to work autonomously, etc, etc. I do think, however, that your position is becoming clearer.

    If you truly are a “science guy” or just want a better explanation of the genetics that indicate common ancestry, try reading “Your Inner Fish” by Shubin. He even mentions Tiktaalik in the book. Shubin much more eloquently establishes the case for common ancestry than I am able or willing to do on a blog. Especially when dealing with someone whose intelligence would very nearly match that of my nearly 5 year old child’s.

    little “a”, you’re dismissed.

  537. on 04 Mar 2014 at 4:52 pm 537.DPK said …

    “These similarities are a results of refinements by engineers with an desired design.”

    ROTFLOL….. why would a god, with perfect knowledge and unlimited powers and capabilities need to make “refinements” in design? hahaha… we know that the biblical accounts clearly shows your god as a complete bumbling fuck-up… but, seriously… LOL!!
    Yeah, that’s why 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct…. god was refining his perfect design. I think any modern engineer with a 99% failure rate would be in the unemployment line….
    Astro, you are soooo funny. You should write a book.

  538. on 04 Mar 2014 at 5:02 pm 538.Sweetness said …

    “He even mentions Tiktaalik”

    There it is!! OK, now using the SM prove to us that this fish is proof macroevolution takes place.

    “whose intelligence would very nearly match that of my nearly 5 year old child’s.”

    Yuck! Now Freddie mouse if off on personal attacks. Sigh! I think he is getting frustrated with his position.

    “DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

    I agree, its powerful, its an incredible information device and we didn”t expect it to have a second program! ROTFL!!………The increased complexity shoots down your naturalistic worldview down even further!

    Not off to a good start Freddie mouse. But I see your problem SO often. You will never read anything which contradicts what you want to believe. You react in anger because it is your religion. WE, the men of science look at evidence objectively and make conclusions. We don’t let others think for us.

    Now run and hide

  539. on 04 Mar 2014 at 5:38 pm 539.DPK said …

    “A”… Still waiting for your explanation and evidence.
    Boy you can tap dance good… but dancing around waving your arms doesn’t make your god theory any more plausible that the stupid, laughable sea turtle hypothesis. So, once again, put up or shut up. LOL
    How did the first cell form, and why did god, without use of speciation, need to “refine” his perfect design? Why does he allow mutations to occur? I mean, if your automobile “designer” engineered the instructions for making a car that allowed for random changes, would that be a good design?

  540. on 04 Mar 2014 at 5:44 pm 540.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    “He even mentions Tiktaalik”

    There it is!! OK, now using the SM prove to us that this fish is proof macroevolution takes place.

    Still trying to tread water, sweetie? Read the book. It just presents the common genetic markers, it doesn’t ask you to abandon your gauwd. You’re a “science guy”, the information should interest you. However, I don’t remember Shubin spelling out how the internal combustion engine proves common descent of anything….maybe you should put that one out there yourself for peer review (ridicule?).

    Another little “a” doozie regarding DNA:

    we didn”t expect it to have a second program!

    Maybe sweetie pie should have studied a little more before blowing his wad on this one. Yes the work is good…No, it does not point to a gauwd. It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution. But it was a nice try, sweetness.

    And then little “a” follows up with:

    The increased complexity shoots down your naturalistic worldview down even further!

    Almost as if with blinders on, sweetie pie misses the part in the quote about “NATURE has fully exploited” (emphasis mine). WOW!!!!

    I wonder how it’s possible to be soooo stupid? Oh yeah, “science guy” has a god that absolutely MUST EXIST in his corner. No wonder.

  541. on 04 Mar 2014 at 7:35 pm 541.DPK said …

    Even if, for the sake of argument, one would in fact abandon the idea of a “naturalistic” explanation, how does one jump from that to a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent god who loves you, and wants you to worship him?
    Without, of course, jumping to the “ridiculous” god of the gaps argument? Lol.
    In short… “A” your explanation sounds as goofy as the interdimensional sea turtle. Show us why anyone should believe you.

  542. on 04 Mar 2014 at 8:05 pm 542.the messenger said …

    534.freddies_dead, all of the verses that you posted do not contain any command of rape.

    Yes the women were being forced to marry or become servants, but that does not mean that rape occurred.

    Rape is specifically prohibbited according to Deuteronomy 22.

    There, in one comment I just disproved your entire arguement about rape.

  543. on 04 Mar 2014 at 8:27 pm 543.DPK said …

    So, you are saying that if a woman or girl is forced to marry someone, that isn’t rape?
    hahahahahahaha
    I guess if you believe that “eternity” doesn’t mean forever, “stone to death” doesn’t mean stone someone until they are dead, “kill” doesn’t mean kill… “slave” doesn’t mean slave…. ok, sure Messy.

    Remember, this is from the guy who said that a woman who is raped should be forced to marry her rapist because that would be just punishment for the rapist.

    Yu are on weird MF, there Messy…. and sorry, you didn’t “disprove” anything, you only made yourself look even more crazy than everyone here already knows you are.

  544. on 04 Mar 2014 at 11:15 pm 544.The messenger said …

    543.DPK, FYI, the word “rape” does not mean forced to marry. Rape means….

    (a crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.)

    I never said that “eternal” does not mean forever. I simply stated that due to the surrounding text, the word “eternal” is not used in a literal way, but is used to stress a long period of time.

    Have you ever heard the phrase, “this is taking forever”. It does not use the word “eternal” in a literal sense, but it does use it to stress a long period of time.

  545. on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:53 am 545.Sweetness said …

    “You’re a “science guy”, the information should interest you.”

    Very much so. Let me sum it up for you. Similarities among creatures suggest just as powerfully to a common designer as opposed to many designers. Next! lol!!! Your book and argument are not new. I have no fish within me. lol!!

  546. on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:57 am 546.Sweetness said …

    “don’t remember Shubin spelling out how the internal combustion engine proves common descent of anything”

    Of course not. It would prove just the opposite. lol!!!! (ridicule intended)

    “It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution.”

  547. on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:58 am 547.Sweetness said …

    “It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution.”

    Indeed? OK, how does it prove evolution over what we already know?

    I wanted this post separate. Didn’t want freddie mouse to miss it. This is going to be good! Popcorn heating……

  548. on 05 Mar 2014 at 2:05 am 548.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    Lets summarize:
    Sweetie pie provided what he assumed was some “god news” with an entry about what a researcher, John Stamatoyannopoulos, had discovered. Researcher says:

    “…DNA is an incredibly powerful information storage device, which NATURE has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

    The “hot scoop” which YOU provided worked more in my favour than yours…..likely due to YOUR pre-kindergarten reading and comprehension skills. In a nutshell, this is exactly the extent of your abilities. You are clueless beyond belief and with gauwd on your shoulders weighing you down, you’ll never really get science, “science guy”.

  549. on 05 Mar 2014 at 2:46 am 549.Sweetness said …

    “The “hot scoop” which YOU provided worked more in my favour than yours”

    Well readers, here we go another claim by Freddie mouse he will not prove……..sigh……..lol!!!!!!

    Here is another claim he refuses to defend.

    “It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution.”

    Things never change. Lots of claims zero evidence. Oh well, popcorn getting cold again………sigh!..

    What did we learn new about evolution? Freddie mouse learned that primordial soup monkey is heck of a programmer! Lol!!!!!!!!

  550. on 05 Mar 2014 at 3:33 am 550.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    “The “hot scoop” which YOU provided worked more in my favour than yours”

    Well readers, here we go another claim

    Sweetie, I was going by the comments of the researcher who said it was NATURE. There’s nothing to prove. See, there’s your single digit IQ comprehension skills at work.

    OK, next step now- a real look at evolution and genetic markers at work needs a time frame….right sweetness?

    Let’s look at the age of the Earth and when Homo sapiens appeared. Can you give me an estimate on both? Someone cue the dance music, sweetness is about to start to start shuffling around. LOL!!!!!

  551. on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:10 am 551.Sweetness said …

    “I was going by the comments of the researcher who said it was NATURE”

    Now it is an appeal to authority and more ad homenim attacks. Lol!!!!!! Expected, you dont seem much on reasoning out things yourself. More of the follower who is told what to believe. Freddie mouse you are so silly! Wow!!!! Lets see….two questions ignored and Fred mouse claim of “Nature”. Nature what?

    lol!!!!!! Yes, I see why you are attempting to change the subject……again! Lol!!!

    Nope, we gonna camp right here until you can explain yourself Lucy.. lol!!!!

  552. on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:25 am 552.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    “I was going by the comments of the researcher who said it was NATURE”

    Now it is an appeal to authority

    Are you forgetting something, sweetie? It was you who mentioned the researcher first. You brought his work to the blog’s attention. WTF? Was that “an appeal to authority” or just a gauwd guiding you?

    Looks like the dance has began. Of course real science scares our resident “science guy”.

    Lets see….two questions ignored

    When you’re ready, here they are again (try and remember, we’re on about evolution and genetic markers):

    Let’s look at the age of the Earth and when Homo sapiens appeared. Can you give me an estimate on timeframes for both? How old is our planet Earth and when did humans first appear?

    Prediction: Keep the dance music playing, sweetness is still solo dancing, shuffling, and looking (desperately) for an exit.

  553. on 05 Mar 2014 at 6:12 am 553.DPK said …

    543.DPK, FYI, the word “rape” does not mean forced to marry. Rape means….

    Uh… Yes, forced marriage is rape… Unless you are claiming that all those ancient men took wife’s but never had sex with them. What would make you think that?

    You are so amazingly full of shit…. Hahaha

  554. on 05 Mar 2014 at 10:49 am 554.freddies_dead said …

    544.the messenger said …

    534.freddies_dead, all of the verses that you posted do not contain any command of r*pe.

    They all talk about taking the women of the conquered tribes and forcing them to marry the men who slaughtered their families. A marriage must be consummated to be valid and this means rape because there’s no way those women are consenting.

    Yes the women were being forced to marry or become servants, but that does not mean that r*pe occurred.

    Yes, it does, or the marriages aren’t consummated.

    R*pe is specifically prohibbited according to Deuteronomy 22.

    There, in one comment I just disproved your entire arguement about r*pe.

    No messy, all you’ve done is note the schizophrenically contradictory nature of your Holy book. In one breath it’s saying you can rape the women of conquered tribes to your heart’s content and in the next breath rapists – and for some truly perverted reason the victims – are to be stoned to death (which you claim doesn’t actually happen – so still no punishment for rapists). You should also note that they’re only rapists if they force themselves on women who are betrothed. If the woman isn’t betrothed then it’s all fine, you just have to marry your victim – a concept that any right thinking person would find truly disgusting.

    As I said – and have shown – your Bible is a cesspit of morality.

  555. on 05 Mar 2014 at 12:03 pm 555.Sweetness said …

    “Was that “an appeal to authority” or just a gauwd guiding you?

    Yes, your expanded claim of “Nature” is appeal to authority. You have yet to prove how DNA originated. Nature? Aliens? My acknowledgment of the authors work was a factual truth about DNA.

    we know nature utilizes DNA but you seem to think this a victory for you….lol!!!!!….care to elaborate?

    “It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution?

    What did we learn about evolution from this discovery?

    Yes, the dance has begun. A Freddie mouse claim he will again refuse to support.

    sigh…….

  556. on 05 Mar 2014 at 1:08 pm 556.alex said …

    “You have yet to prove how DNA originated. Nature? Aliens?”

    it’s been postulated and you’re right, unproven, and? when they found millions year old dna, how does that fit in your biblical 10000 year timeline?

    IF it was proven that aliens seeded the earth with the different species of men, all that does is invalidate the theory of man’s evolution. it doesn’t render science and/or the observable timelines as bull.

    if a god did code dna, using observed/measured timelines, all that does is officially bullshitify your biblical god with his 10000 history. what? you/messenger will come up with some time/bending biblical crap?

    even if the entire evolution was invalidated, science still stands and you putting on your seatbelt is proof of your belief in newtonian law.

  557. on 05 Mar 2014 at 3:53 pm 557.Anonymous said …

    little “a”, from your post #555:

    we know nature utilizes DNA but you seem to think this a victory for you….lol!!!!!….care to elaborate?

    Sweetie, YES I do care to elaborate. It seems that you’re actually slowly tuning in – Because previously you had stated (in post #538):

    The increased complexity shoots down your naturalistic worldview down even further!

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!

    You have yet to prove how DNA originated.

    WHOA THERE, sweetness. That’s another topic, TRY and FOCUS. Swiftness is obviously not a trait of sweetness. We were talking genetic markers and evolution and trying to establish timeframes when you started prancing.

    “It just adds to what we already know and understand about genetics and evolution?

    What did we learn about evolution from this discovery?

    How about this as one example:

    This new discovery throws new light on evolutionary genetics as each mutation in an organism can have dual implications.

    And that was my point.

    But your turn now. Simpleton basic science required, no challenge for a “science guy” LOL!!!!!!!! Easy stuff that you already know. We won’t look for your inner fish, we’ll just go and find your inner monkey LOL!!! These are your two questions:

    Let’s look at the age of the Earth and when Homo sapiens appeared. Can you give me an estimate on timeframes for both? How old is our planet Earth and when did humans first appear?

    sweetness checks around for the nearest exit and delivers……..(more stalling I’d say).

  558. on 05 Mar 2014 at 5:37 pm 558.Sweetness said …

    “The increased complexity shoots down your naturalistic worldview down even further!”

    Exactly. Prove it wrong…..maybe u can show us your primordial soup programming monkey! Lol!!!!!

    ‘WHOA THERE, sweetness. That’s another topic”

    Ah, no, that is the topic…..DNA. But you don’t like tough questions. So…….how could something with high information content originate without intelligence? Lol!!!! Feel free to throw in some markers……lol!!!!

    “This new discovery throws new light on evolutionary genetics as each mutation in an organism can have dual implications.”

    Hey we took a step…….now prove mutations gave DNA multiple complex programmed information!…..lol!!!!

    Don’t dodge, keep googling until you come up with something better than vague references…

  559. on 05 Mar 2014 at 7:25 pm 559.DPK said …

    “Ah, no, that is the topic…..DNA”

    Apparently this is your last stand for your god, as all other explanations have been shredded. So, despite the fact that this is the “god of the gaps” argument that you yourself declared “silly”… Let’s have your explanation.
    How exactly did the first DNA molecule form? No one here is claiming to know this except YOU… so lets hear you explanation and see your evidence. What’s the problem?

  560. on 05 Mar 2014 at 9:56 pm 560.DPK said …

    “Let’s look at the age of the Earth and when Homo sapiens appeared. Can you give me an estimate on timeframes for both? How old is our planet Earth and when did humans first appear?”

    He is not ever going to answer you. He is not interested in truth, or even in honest debate. He is only interested in trying to bolster his own delusion by trying to find people who agree with his crack pot notions… like Messy… LOL. That is why he needs to invent sock puppet personages to make it seem like someone else agrees with him.

    How about it science guy? Here is your chance to save my soul… I WANT to believe… just show me exactly why I should believe you vs all the other creation stories. Show us the way.

  561. on 05 Mar 2014 at 11:39 pm 561.the messemger said …

    553.DPK, the action of forcing someone to marry someone is not rape. Rape is when sex is forced upon a person without the consent of both people.

    The israelites were allowed to force the women to marry them, but they were not allowed to force sex on them unless the women agreed to it.

  562. on 06 Mar 2014 at 12:21 am 562.Anonymous said …

    little “a” attempts to pull off some disco moves (and get the conversation onto his ONLY hope, abiogenesis):

    ‘WHOA THERE, sweetness. That’s another topic”

    Ah, no, that is the topic…..DNA

    The topic was supposed to be about GENETIC DIFFERENCES and SIMILARITIES in TODAY’S LIFEFORMS. Yes, it is about DNA and we were going to start by establishing timelines, which you have STILL FAILED to do. Instead your dancing, prancing, and arm waving continues.

    Try your best to STAY FOCUSED, Sweetie Pie, I know and understand how difficult it is for you. Are we still on about examining common descent by comparative sequence analysis?

    Feel free to throw in some markers

    Well, alright then. Markers it is. From your favourite Xtian website, BIOLOGOSdotORG we get:

    Full-genome sequence comparisons between living great apes also fit the expected pattern: orangutans and humans have sequences 97.4% identical; humans and gorillas, 98.4% identical; and humans and chimpanzees, 99.0% identical.

    Now did god create humans as unique “one of” prototypes or does god just have a sense of humour? Hey, Sweetie, why not let these brothers in god at biologos know how your internal combustion engine and car idea completely destroys these whacky scientific findings. LOL!!!!!

  563. on 06 Mar 2014 at 12:35 am 563.alex said …

    here’s messenger’s pile of shit, i’ve managed to compile and handle with extreme caution and gloves. this ain’t fake. links point back to the comment on this blog. of course hor is afraid of links.

    http://goo.gl/Vde24A

    any readers out there who agree with mess, plz feel free to post your support. chirp?

    this list is actually humorous. my favorite is the dumbass’ argument that without god you’d turn into bleh, bleh. the fuckhead can’t even comtemplate what a “thor” god would do to the 3+ billion shitheads.

    messenger, your shit is archived and you can’t hide. you can do what hor does, but we’re hip to his shit.

    A40Y-HorX-Troll/martin/science guy/ths sckence guy/biff/the hor/xenon/A/Sweetness

    lyin bitch.

  564. on 06 Mar 2014 at 12:42 am 564.alex said …

    messy’s classic. (post 39)

    “Angus and Alexis, there is no such thing as a redemption card. Redemption is a hard process. Getting forgiveness from GOD is an easy thing because he is very kind.”

    redemption is hard and easy. sorto like omniscience and free will. god can create something more powerful, but he won’t. eternal is temporary. messy, you comedian, motherfucker you.

  565. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:41 am 565.The messenger said …

    566.alex, I do not speak for those people.

  566. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:45 am 566.The messenger said …

    557.freddies_dead, your claims of rape are based on assumptions. You assume that rape occurred in those situations because it seems like it would happen. But I tell you, GOD condemned rape in Deuteronomy 22, therefore the Israelites were forbidden to kill anyone.

  567. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:49 am 567.The messenger said …

    557.freddies_dead, in comment 569 I meant to type the word “rape”, not the word “kill”.

  568. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 568.The messenger said …

    557.freddies_dead, your claims of rape are based on assumptions. You assume that rape occurred in those situations because it seems like it would happen. But I tell you, GOD condemned rape in Deuteronomy 22, therefore the Israelites were forbidden to rape anyone, even the people that they were forced to marry.,

  569. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:06 am 569.alex said …

    Forcing somebody to marry will not result in rape? you dumbshit. assumption? you truly are a dumb motherfucker. read this passage, you dumb motherfucker. ya think it’ll be rape?

    Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

    now go look it up, you fuckhead.

  570. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:09 am 570.alex said …

    “GOD condemned rape in Deuteronomy 22″

    and oppositely says Numbers 31:18. god knows but don’t know. god answers prayers sometimes. god loves women but hates women. god knows all but forgets.

    god is bullshit and messenger does his own shit.

  571. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:31 am 571.The messenger said …

    572.alex, only the virgins were allowed for marrage, because typically the virgins were not married yet. If they were married already it would be adulatory to marry another man.

  572. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:33 am 572.Sweetness said …

    “Full-genome sequence comparisons between living great apes also fit the expected pattern: orangutans and humans have sequences 97.4% identical; humans and gorillas, 98.4% identical; and humans and chimpanzees, 99.0% identical.”

    ROTFL!!!!! OK, so prove that we evolved from the chimp. Do you realize how large a number the 1% really is? Look it up. Hey, I’m ready to believe!

    “why not let these brothers in god at biologos know how your internal combustion engine and car idea completely destroys these whacky scientific findings.”

    Um, what finding? We have similar characteristics? Duh! lol!!! Already knew that for years!!!!. I though you had something new! lol!!!!!!!!

    Freddie mouse you make me laugh so. You actually think you found something new!!!! Wow!!!!

    NOW…..

    Here is your timeline. Show me how the first DNA can be written without intelligence? What are your theories? This would be a decisive victory for you completely eliminating God. That is what the blog is about, right?

  573. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:35 am 573.The messenger said …

    573.alex, Numbers 31:18 does not say that GOD hates or loves women. Also, it does not say that rape is ok.

  574. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:45 am 574.alex said …

    “Numbers 31:18 does not say that GOD hates or loves women”

    did i say it did, you dumbass?

    “it does not say that rape is ok.”

    what part of “you may keep them for yourselves.” oh, i forget, same logic you’re using to say that forced marriage will not result in rape, eh?

    remember, you’re the motherfucker that said a rapist may marry his victim for his punishment. anybody else in your congregation agree with this shit? the pope? hor/martin? anybody? somebody else agree with you?

    you stand alone, you dumb motherfucker, the only true xtian, in your own fucked up mind.

  575. on 06 Mar 2014 at 2:56 am 575.The messenger said …

    577.alex, your argument is one big ridiculous accusation. You assume that rape will occur, even though their is no text evidence.

    Rape was never commanded.

  576. on 06 Mar 2014 at 3:00 am 576.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    Do you realize how large a number the 1% really is?

    My math is usually really poor but I think it’s a little smaller than 99%. What do you think, Sweetie Pie? Can someone check my math for me. LOL!!!!

    Here is your timeline. Show me how the first DNA can be written without intelligence? What are your theories? This would be a decisive victory for you completely eliminating God. That is what the blog is about, right?

    That’s it? Where’s the timeline, sweetie? It didn’t show up on the website!!! What are you afraid of? Always reverting back to abiogenesis. Do you have the proof that goddidit, sweetie? Didn’t think so. I have no proof and neither do you.

    Of what value is comparative genomic analysis? In your opinion, of course. Would’ve saved a lot of time if you’d have said earlier that it’s just junk science.

    Any value, in your opinion, of the genetic or molecular clock? More junk science?

    BTW, Who has completely eliminated god? Not me. Just haven’t found any evidence supporting that hypothesis yet. Got some?

  577. on 06 Mar 2014 at 3:36 am 577.alex said …

    “Rape was never commanded.”

    “you may keep them for yourselves” to do what, motherfucker? your sheepherder uncles thought they was slick and you likes it. what would you do with virgins, you dumb motherfucker? save them for your forced marriage? can’t find anybody to agree with you so you insist on fucking with this blog?

    for every stupid ass comment you post in here, you’ll get the what you deserve. scorn, motherfucker.

    i’ll tell you what. post your shit in facebook and get 5 likes and i’ll pray to your allah. ok?

  578. on 06 Mar 2014 at 12:10 pm 578.freddies_dead said …

    570.The messenger said …

    557.freddies_dead, your claims of r*pe are based on assumptions.

    Nope, they’re based on realities. The Bible considers women to be second class and couldn’t really give a toss what happens to them except when it affects their monetary value. For example, if a man claims his new bride is not a virgin and it turns out that she is, he has to pay the father 100 shekels – not the woman he’s lied about, her father. If it turns out she’s not a virgin … oh oh, get the stones ready, she’s getting killed for damaging her father’s reputation.

    You assume that r*pe occurred in those situations because it seems like it would happen.

    Not “seems like”, it does. The rape of women of conquered tribes/peoples has gone on throughout history. It still happens today messy. You really wouldn’t want to be a woman in a war zone, especially when the Christian soldiers see you as spoils of war.

    But I tell you, GOD condemned r*pe in Deuteronomy 22,

    No messy, I’ve already shown that Deuteronomy 22 (it’s verses 23 through 29 by the way) only condemns the rape of virgin Israelite women who are already betrothed and then only if they’re assaulted somewhere where, when the woman cries out for help, there’s no-one to save her. If it’s done where someone could hear and yet no-one does the woman is considered as bad as her attacker and she’s stoned to death alongside him.

    therefore the Israelites were forbidden to r*pe anyone,

    Except for virgin Israelite women that aren’t betrothed and the spoils of war (i.e. any other women) of course. They’re fair game according to your Bible. Hell, rapists of virgin daughters can even buy their victims for fifty shekels of silver – given to the father for messing with his property of course. And then he only needs to pay if he’s caught raping her.

    even the people that they were forced to marry.,

    And, as I’ve already pointed out, a marriage is usually only considered valid once it’s been consummated – when it’s a forced marriage, that’ll be rape.

  579. on 06 Mar 2014 at 12:24 pm 579.Sweetness said …

    “Where’s the timeline, sweetie?”

    The beginning….lol!! You can use whatever date you like :)

    “Always reverting back to abiogenesis.”

    Well…..yeah…..you run from it. How is it possible for DNA to form without a designer? You have no possibilities? But you know your ancestor is a Chimp ( well that might be true for freddie mouse)? lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Simple question. As Pink Floyd would say……run, run ,run, run, run

    “My math is usually really poor”

    LOL!!!! Yes, yes it is. but the first step is admitting the problem :)

    “Just haven’t found any evidence supporting that hypothesis yet.”

    Please….share….what would evidence for God look like?

    “Of what value is comparative genomic analysis”

    Pathogenesis for one. Is this what you would like to defend?

  580. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:07 pm 580.alex said …

    “How is it possible for DNA to form without a designer? You have no possibilities?”

    this shit is old. anybody here claiming how dna was formed? you’re the one who insist on a designer. you prove it.

    “But you know your ancestor is a Chimp”

    who said that? cite it, you lyin shit. chimp fossils found older than hominids? the chimp ancestry is so stupid it’s not surprising you’d be spouting it.

    nobody here has to defend anything. when somebody says bullshit, what is the response? abiogenesis? camaros? ocean swimming? programmer?

    wrong. case in point. why are objects in the universe accelerating away? i dunno. some say dark energy and i say bullshit. the response?

  581. on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:26 pm 581.alex said …

    “why are objects in the universe accelerating away? i dunno. some say dark energy and i say bullshit. the response?”

    hor’s response: god. dark energy can’t be proven, so it must be god. alex doesn’t have a position on it, so it must be god.

    what a fuckhead. sorry, i digressed.

  582. on 06 Mar 2014 at 3:26 pm 582.DPK said …

    “Well…..yeah…..you run from it. How is it possible for DNA to form without a designer? You have no possibilities?”

    Perhaps the same way you think it is possible for a “designer” to form without a designer? LOL.

    Actually there are lots of “possibilities” just not enough evidence to fully support any of them yet.
    Tell you what… explain to us exactly how you think it occurred… and please present the evidence you have that supports your position. Remember, “I can’t imagine any other way” is just an argument from ignorance and hold no water….

  583. on 06 Mar 2014 at 3:48 pm 583.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    “Where’s the timeline, sweetie?”

    The beginning….lol!! You can use whatever date you like

    Ok, Sweetie, again I know how difficult this is for you – Having your position constrained by simple timelines takes away your wiggle room. I’ll make it easier for you because that’s just the kind of guy I’am and I hate to see you flapping in the breeze.

    The planet Earth is 4,500 million years old
    Simple single celled lifeforms emerged 3,500 million years ago
    Humans (Homo sapiens) have existed for 0.2 million years

    See, that wasn’t too difficult, was it Sweetpea?

    But you know your ancestor is a Chimp

    TSK,TSK, “science guy”. That is a very common mistake for someone who does NOT understand science. It is true that of all of the lifeforms on this planet, the chimp has a genome most similar to ours. (Remember, 99%). Even you admit that. It could mean that we SHARE a COMMON ancestor. Maybe we should investigate a little further. What do you say, sweetness?

    “My math is usually really poor”

    LOL!!!! Yes, yes it is. but the first step is admitting the problem

    But your math skills appear even worse ;-)

    Lets keep looking into what we know of life on our planet Earth over the past 15 or 20 million years. No more need to keep harping on abiogenesis, Sweetie.
    OK?

  584. on 06 Mar 2014 at 5:49 pm 584.DPK said …

    “But you know your ancestor is a Chimp”

    hahahahaha… yeah, Mr. “Science Guy” thinks that science says humans descended from chimpanzees.

    I was watching a TV interview where some ID “expert” claimed that science claimed modern humans descended from Neanderthals. And let us not forget the ID’s darling Christine O’Donnell who said “If evolution were true, why don’t we see monkeys giving birth to humans today?”

    Ignorance abounds when you gleam you “facts” from creationist websites and ancient myths and fables… or like in Messy’s case, you just make them up as you go along. har har har…………..

    Let the circus continue…………..

  585. on 06 Mar 2014 at 9:22 pm 585.Sweetness said …

    “Having your position constrained by simple timelines takes away your wiggle room”

    um, no not at all. Start from the beginning….. Any date you like. Why are you so afraid of the beginning silly?

    So what possible mechanism can create DNA? Primordial soup programmer? Lol!!!!!!

    “It could mean that we SHARE a COMMON ancestor”

    ROTFL, it could mean? Hahahahahahah, I am a man of science not fairy tales. Your grandpa was a tree swinger……lol!!!!!…..call him whatever you like Tarzan…..lol!!!!

    Back to facts…you cannot even tell me how a strand of DNA evolves from your soup. Lol!!!!!!…..and you want to tell me we have a common ancestor with and because we are similar….lol!!!!!!

    Prove it using the SM.

    Those are your two assignments. Begin!

  586. on 06 Mar 2014 at 10:16 pm 586.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    Looking like SS Sweetness has sprung a leak and is starting to take on water. LOL!!!!

    “Having your position constrained by simple timelines takes away your wiggle room”

    um, no not at all. Start from the beginning….. Any date you like

    Ummmm, OK. I thought that’s what I did earlier. Any date that I like? How about when I suggested we look into life 20 million years ago? Hmmmmm….Or how about we start from the beginning of when humans emerged? 0.2 million years ago. Is that good for you sweetie? Or should we use the molecular clock and look into where a divergence could have occurred? You didn’t seem to complain about my timeline, the one you were afraid to commit to. Are the numbers OK with you?

    Your position always distill down to 3,500 million years ago, when simple single celled organisms appeared.

    Back to facts…you cannot even tell me how a strand of DNA evolves

    Weren’t we trying to do some comparative genomic analysis and starting to implement the molecular clock in comparing human and chimp genomes? WTF? Even you said the (micro) evolution is a fact. Have you changed your mind?

    “It could mean that we SHARE a COMMON ancestor”

    ……and you want to tell me we have a common ancestor with and because we are similar….lol!!!!!!
    Prove it using the SM.

    I was about to when you started spouting on about the ONLY and LAST bastion where your god can reside…….abiogenesis. When you’re interested in discussing evolution, “science guy”, we can look into why we share a common ancestor.

    You seem to have come totally unhinged and lost all sense of objectivity. Just an observation, Sweetie.

  587. on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:37 pm 587.Sweetness said …

    “Your position always distill down to 3,500 million years ago, when simple single celled organisms appeared. ”

    Lol!!!!!!! It is not a position but it is a question. You obviously have no clue and your theories are laughable so lets move on. Round one to me.

    Let me make this simple. Bring anything you have that would eliminate a designer and prove to all that nature created all we enjoy ex nihlio, no creator, nada. Once you give us this SM proven evidence we can wrap it up.

    How”s that? No more excuse Freddie mouse! Lol!!!!

    Go!

    Cue: more complaining and whining and similarities fallacies and couldovs and mightovs.

    lol!!!!!

  588. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:26 am 588.The messenger said …

    580.alex, I do not have a facebook.

  589. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:37 am 589.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    Let me make this simple. Bring anything you have that would eliminate a designer

    Whoa there Sweetie, who said anything about eliminating a creator/programmer/god? We were looking at genomes and evolution. Where did that come from? You seem to be losing it big time.

    Sweetie pie demonstrates, to a tee, what happens when one
    a) Has taken a god onboard and,
    b) Desperately needs to have material evidence as support for his faith and
    c) Decides to cherry pick what science holds relevance to the belief.

    Sweetie, we have compelling evidence for evolution. The two of us were slowly delving into it. You were helping me build the case until you became unstable and unhinged. Hey, you do know it’s possible to support evolution and be a Catholic who believes in a god very similar to yours. Also, Francis Collins is a Baptist who is ALSO an EVOLUTIONIST. And he runs your favourite xtian website.

    We, together, were working on a plausible working model. Why are you running away now? Remember, you did state:

    Start from the beginning….. Any date you like

    Is this just smoke from you, sweetness, or shall we re-start at or before the rise of humanity (about 0.2 million years ago)?

  590. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:44 am 590.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy’s anti rape laws are not specified to just the Israelites. they apply to all people in the new covenant.

    A lot of groups in ancient times have committed rape after concurring a people. But the Israelites did not do that, because GOD specifically prohibited rape ,in Deuteronomy.

  591. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:48 am 591.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, where in the bible does it say that “virgin Israelite women” can be raped?

    You make crazy claims, but you do not provide proof.

  592. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:59 am 592.Sweetness said …

    “Where did that come from?”

    oh sorry I confused you with stinging logic

    Um um, well, see you are an atheist. You believe no Designer is involved in Creation. Then there is the consideration we ate on an atheist blog….

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!! Wow!!! What…..a…….mess.

    Tell you what little guy…..you tell me what you want to prove. Ok? Then we will go from there.

    “Francis Collins is a Baptist who is ALSO an EVOLUTIONIST.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Yes, I know. And he is not the only one!!

    He also has no problem with God!!! Lol!!!!! Did you catch that one? Lol!!!!!!!!!!

    See that is what separates your from me, I think and make conclusions for myself. Well you, you quote others and let them think for you.

    IF and its a big IF macro is true, no biggie. My worldview doesn’t change a bit. JUST MORE PROOF A CREATOR EXISTS…….lol!!!!!

    Ok go bring your best for whatever….lol!!!!….you plan to “prove”.

  593. on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:34 am 593.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, the bible does not punish a woman that calls out for help while being raped, even if she is not heard.

    The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help.

    If she cried out for help(heard or not) she will not be punished.

    Lastly, that passage does not command stoning, and it does not say that humans are to carry out the punishment. And lastly, I already proved that the stoning is metaphorical.

  594. on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:07 am 594.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    “Where did that come from?”

    oh sorry I confused you with stinging logic

    Ouch, that hurts. Your stinging logic is so stupid it burns.

    you tell me what you want to prove. Ok? Then we will go from there.

    ADD? Dementia? Reading comprehension problems? Get with it Sweetpea, don’t act stupid. You’re not acting. Oh, my bad. Sorry. Don’t you remember YOUR post in #520, scroll up, if you want:

    Anonymous: “Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.”

    little “a”/sweetness: OK

    Let’s take a quick score and see where we are.
    We agree:
    The human and chimp genome is 99% identical.
    The Earth is 4,500 million years old
    Early single celled life emerged 3,500 million years ago
    Homo sapiens have existed for 0.2 million years
    The molecular clock can be used for comparative genomic analysis
    I have brought all of these facts to the debate
    You have yet to actually state a fact
    You believe some creator/programmer/god created the first single celled organisms but you have no proof, only a gut feeling
    Your inner monkey emerged and went ballistic when you began to lose this debate.
    YOU will continue to avoid debate on the topic YOU agreed to in post #520.

  595. on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:39 am 595.Sweetness said …

    “YOU will continue to avoid debate on the topic YOU agreed to in post #520″

    Debate what? Lol!!!!!!!!

    What is the topic Homer? Lol!!!!!

    You had another brain fart. You complain when I ask how DNA evolved but suddenly you are asking for proof of a Creator! Lol!!!!!!!! Topic scares you to death!!! Lol!!!!!!

    Do you realize Francis Collins believes in a Designer and he is an evolutionist?

    Does your job require you to work a window? You are a serious mess.

    OK, I am going to help you out. Read through this post 3 times. Take a deep breath, don’t get emotional. Then write out clearly your question. Have a banana and keep calm.

    You did want me to state a fact. Yes, you do need help with what facts are. Similarities among species does not prove one evolved from the other. There is no evidence for macroevolution verifiable with the SM.

    Bam! Lol!!!!!!! Luv you Freddie mouse. You make me laugh so…..

  596. on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:53 am 596.Anonymous said …

    “YOU will continue to avoid debate on the topic YOU agreed to in post #520″
    Sweetpea: What is the topic
    WOW!!!! Swiftness is not your strong suit, is it sweetness?

    you are asking for proof of a Creator

    Nope, Sweetie. Not asking for proof, none exists.

    Topic scares you to death

    If you insist.

    Similarities among species does not prove one evolved from the other. There is no evidence for macroevolution verifiable with the SM.

    You were helping me set up a working and plausible model to explain the origins of humans some 0.2 million years ago and now your behaving like your inner monkey has taken over and flown into a rage. You’re completely unhinged and unfocused. Science, I understand, scares you. It’s OK, not everyone gets it.

  597. on 07 Mar 2014 at 4:15 am 597.Sweetness said …

    “You were helping me set up a working and plausible model to explain the origins of humans”

    Great! I will defer to your expertise. Remember, I am a man of science so it will need yo meet the criteria of the SM. Thanks Freddie mouse.

    I look forward to learning from the mousekeeteer! Lol!!! Share how you know no Creator exists. This is wonderful!

    This will be so good….

  598. on 07 Mar 2014 at 4:32 am 598.Anonymous said …

    Anon: “You were helping me set up a working and plausible model to explain the origins of humans”

    little “a”/sweetness: Great! I will defer to your expertise.

    Duh, Sweetie. I said I will need your help. Reading comprehension problem? Drunk? Or are you just getting tired?

  599. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:27 am 599.alex said …

    messenger, you dumbass. bullshit proof to prove your bullshit doesn’t work. go rape somebody and offer to marry her and see what happens. but you won’t because talk is cheap.

  600. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:46 am 600.alex said …

    hor’s entire argument is shifting the burden of proof. again, let’s say that everything that atheists say here is bullshit. now, how the fuck does that validate the bullshit god? speak up bitch. dna programmer again? i already said atheists are full of shit and now all your diversionary straw shit is gone. whatcha got?

    what, i don’t stand for anything? contraire, motherfucker. i stand for the earth being more that 10,000 years old and what about you? you need more standing for something? dna programmer again? i said dunno and you say god? and your proof? what corvette again?

    take away all the atheists assertions and the motherfucker hor is laid bare. the xtian goddit and he can’t be convinced. even if hesus’ little sister is the real deal hor would still be hell arguing with that other dipshit, messenger.

    p.s. how’s that rape shit going, mess motherfucker?

    oh, and for the driveby xtian motherfuckers. i care because i wont stand for bullshit and injustice.

  601. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:47 am 601.alex said …

    hor’s entire argument is shifting the burden of proof. again, let’s say that everything that atheists say here is bullshit. now, how the fuck does that validate the bullshit god? speak up bitch. dna programmer again? i already said atheists are full of shit and now all your diversionary straw shit is gone. whatcha got?

    what, i don’t stand for anything? contraire, dumbass. i stand for the earth being more that 10,000 years old and what about you? you need more standing for something? dna programmer again? i said dunno and you say god? and your proof? what corvette again?

    take away all the atheists assertions and the motherfucker hor is laid bare. the xtian goddit and he can’t be convinced. even if hesus’ little sister is the real deal hor would still be hell arguing with that other dipshit, messenger.

    p.s. how’s that rape shit going, mess motherfucker?

    oh, and for the driveby xtian motherfuckers. i care because i wont stand for bullshit and injustice.

  602. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:49 am 602.alex said …

    wow, a double post! how the fuck did that happen? dunno. hor: goddidit and he’s the wwgha programmer.

  603. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:45 pm 603.Sweetness said …

    “I said I will need your help”

    You need my help? I’m drunk, remember? And if it is a DEBATE then we don’t work together. ROTFL!!!. So which is it Frederick the Mouse? Think much? Its your story, so lay it out there. Besides you only regurgitate what others tell you. Don’t be scared…

    Lol!!!!, you don’t even know the definition of a fact or the SM

  604. on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:00 pm 604.alex said …

    “Its your story, so lay it out there”

    still at it, eh? you got got nothing so you keep insisting on pointing out other shit. atheists believe in the turtle? yessir and? your god proof?
    dna programmer is god? prove it. camaros again? ocean swimming?

  605. on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:20 pm 605.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    Let’s start off with your definition of something you espouse: micro-evolution. I take it to be defined as changes over time in groups of organisms as noted in and reflected in their DNA. These changes can be tracked using comparative genomic analysis. As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.

    you don’t even know the definition of a fact or the SM

    That’s strange, sweetness. You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.
    We still agree that the chimp and human genome is 99% identical. Humans have existed on planet Earth for much less than one million years.

  606. on 07 Mar 2014 at 5:43 pm 606.DPK said …

    “That’s strange, sweetness. You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.”

    Fun watching him do the theist shuffle, ain’t it?
    Always comes back to the only thing he has… “prove god didn’t do it!” LOL…. Hey Sweety… you never proved sea turtle didn’t do it… I’ve provided every bit as much evidence to support the sea turtle hypothesis as you have for your warrior god / gentle Jesus hypothesis.

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Or did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?
    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur.

  607. on 07 Mar 2014 at 5:44 pm 607.Sweetness said …

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    OK, Prove it.

    “You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.”

    A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.

    So are we debating or are we working together here on a model? You never cleared up this point.

    LOL!!!!!!!!

  608. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:15 pm 608.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    So are we debating or are we working together here on a model? You never cleared up this point.

    Trouble reading and understanding, Sweetpea? Unable to focus and concentrate? SIGH!!!! Another reminder: (from post #520)

    Mouse: “Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.”

    Sweetpea: OK

    This is becoming a little repetitive. We were going to discuss but now you want a debate. Either way! Just another of your distractions.

    Hey, I asked for YOUR definition on micro-evolution. Where is it, sweetness? Surely you must know what it is since it’s something you espouse. Let me ask you, “science guy”, do you agree with the statement “using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”
    IF not, then let me know **WHAT IS MICRO-EVOLUTION?**, in your opinion, of course.

  609. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:26 pm 609.alex said …

    “A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.”

    ooh, goody. you found another distraction, eh? you’re too stoopid to look it up, so you challenge it, just like you do with evolution.

    your earlier assertion that your omniscience god gives you free will just demonstrate and confirms your dumbass.

    anybody here can challenge anything, but it doesn’t do shit for your god, does it? i say the turtle can kick you god’s ass, but i can’t prove it. does this prove your god? lol away, motherfucker.

    what? camaro again? ocean swimming? dna programmer? chimp ancestor? macrame evolution?

  610. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:28 pm 610.Anonymous said …

    oh sweetest little “a”

    A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.

    I hate it when you flap around in the breeze. We agree on so many facts already:

    FACT 1. Human and chimp genomes are 99% identical
    FACT 2. First lifeforms on Earth were simple and single celled.
    FACT 3. First lifeforms on Earth are from 3,500 million years ago
    FACT 4. The planet Earth is 4,500 million years old.
    FACT 5. Comparative Genomic Analysis can be used to compare how similar two species are. Hey, we did it with chimps and humans.

    I want to build up more facts as we go along. Lucky for me, you are a real “science guy” so none of this information’s new or startles you. How can you say we have nada? Shame on you, Sweetpea. Have you been drinking again? Sober up so we can continue. Let’s work on this. Errrr, I mean let’s debate this!!!! LOL!!!!

  611. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:52 pm 611.Sweetness said …

    HAHAHAHA, oh freddie the mouse I see cracks forming. Losing it smart feller? Even using my LOLs :)

    “We were going to discuss but now you want a debate. Either way!”

    Let me remind you of your words Frederick the mouse:

    “YOU will continue to avoid debate on the topic”

    Then you turn around and say:

    “You were helping me set up a working and plausible model to explain the origins of humans”

    I don’t think you can find your butt with two hands! lol!!!!!!! I must ask, are you high?

    Anyhow there Frederick the mouse you still have not provided proof for your first…….lol!!!!….fact!

    Let me post it.

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    I did with My response, prove it! Still waiting.

  612. on 07 Mar 2014 at 7:27 pm 612.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    I am beginning to think that I may need to start calling you pseudo-science guy.

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    Too easy. I thought you liked and knew about THE SCIENCES. Maybe not so much.

    I find it interesting how you’ve accepted that our genome is 99% similar to a chimpanzees, yet you have difficulties with small changes in the genomes of human populations. I thought that was what MICRO-EVOLUTION was? Please explain.

    The variations in the genomes within groups of isolated people will accumulate different genetic markers from each other. There is no known mechanism (god or otherwise) that will affect both groups LOCK-STEP so that their genomes remain identical over large periods of time in isolation. Genetic markers unique to the group will form; the longer the period of isolation, the greater the number of markers. We’re talking generations, just to be clear. Think Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia here as hereditary diseases within groups of people. (some people use the word “races of people” but, really, we’re all just part of the human race) Anyways, the markers become part of the “cultural genome” of the population. Now how would you use the genetic or molecular clock to look at cultures or groups of people? Why don’t you tell me, Sweetpea? You know more about science than I do. I am just a simple working man. AGAIN: Tell me YOUR definition of **MICRO-EVOLUTION**.

  613. on 07 Mar 2014 at 8:46 pm 613.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, the bible does not punish a woman that calls out for help while being raped, even if she is not heard.

    The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help.

    If she cried out for help(heard or not) she will not be punished.

    Lastly, that passage does not command stoning, and it does not say that humans are to carry out the punishment. And lastly, I already proved that the stoning is metaphorical.,

  614. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:02 pm 614.Sweetness said …

    LOL!!!!!

    This is the proof that using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged.” lol!!! Do you know what the Molecular clock is my little freddie-mouse?

    Then you admit we are all just the human race so evidently no speciation is taking place! So what is the point?

    freddie-mouse…….. Try again

    My definition of microevolution is the same as all men who know science. While you google molecular clock (define it) (adding do proteins and nucleic acids evolve at a fixed rate) feel free to look up micro and macro evolution. Its is a good exercise for a working mouse.

    But please, add something of value this time. I mean really, gene markers? hereditary ____? Yes, we know how these work through genetics, thanks!

    I am a very busy man. Move this on quickly. I don’t have time for your silly mousey games……lol!!!!!!!!!!lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  615. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:20 pm 615.DPK said …

    Hey Sweetie…. I googled micro and macro evolution ad this is what I found:

    Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

    Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

    Explore: Macroevolution
    Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.

    Now, it would seem that you are the only one wasting time here with your “no it’s not” debate technique.
    So let’s see if we can get anything out of you besides the theist shuffle….

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Or did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?
    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur.

    Will you avoid this like you avoided the question of how you reconcile god’s omnipotence with his omniscience? I predict so…. but it is so much fun watching you squirm… now you’ve resorted to your “I’m too busy” defense… remember when you were directed to evidence you requested but were to busy to “wade through it”? Yeah, that was classic Hor. Fraud through and through…..

  616. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:37 pm 616.Sweetness said …

    “Microevolution over time may lead to speciation…”

    lol!!!!!!! Come to rescue Freddie mouse? OK

    See the word “may” in the definition above? That is because it has never been proven using the SM. Guys like you and Frederick the mouse need to read comprehensively and think critically.

    You are welcome to prove it. I’m ready to believe but I require evidence, proof and verification.

    Thanks Dippity Dew!

    lol!!!!

    Prediction: He runs…

    Monday I sincerely hope you guys have something of substance…….lol!!!

  617. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:59 pm 617.DPK said …

    “That is because it has never been proven using the SM.”

    Ok… I want to learn… let’s assume that changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population due to: mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift never amount to speciation. Yet, we see new species arise in the fossil record many many times, and they have commonalities in DNA with prior species, to whom they are not related.

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Because if that were true then there would still only be microbes, since no new species or traits could have evolved. Just single celled organisms begetting more single celled organisms. So,did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?

    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur. This would really shed some light on god’s brilliant plan… and don’t forget to provide your evidence, since you are claiming that the overwhelming consensus of science is 100% wrong on this….

  618. on 07 Mar 2014 at 10:04 pm 618.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    Do you know what the Molecular clock is

    Maybe you know more about it than I do: Wondering if it can be used to look at chimp and human DNA? What do you think, “science guy”? Or maybe it would be Comparative Genomic Analysis which works better?

    I asked for YOUR definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION. Why am I not surprised you’ve evaded the task AGAIN? Sigh……

    When it came to timeframes you ran and then completely failed to state any numbers. Too afraid of the consequences ;-).
    Now you’re coy about simply defining YOUR understanding of MICRO-EVOLUTION, something near and dear to your god idea. I TRIED Googling the micro thing, it doesn’t look good for you. HOW ABOUT MANNING UP for a radical change of pace. But you’ll run, run, run, run -just like the song says. sigh….. Prove me wrong.

    Then you admit we are all just the human race so evidently no speciation is taking place!

    Gsus Krist. No speciation IS TAKING place? WTF does that even mean? Being Homo sapiens does not, however, rule out speciation HAVING TAKEN place at some time in the past. WOW!!!! “science guy”?

    gene markers? hereditary ____? Yes, we know how these work through genetics, thanks!

    Great!! Now we can move to the chimp and find the inner monkey in you. Sorry for wasting your valuable time on what you already know about human genetics.

    But, really, for the discussion/debate to get anywhere: We NEED a definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION, as YOU understand it.

  619. on 07 Mar 2014 at 10:22 pm 619.DPK said …

    “But, really, for the discussion/debate to get anywhere: We NEED a definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION, as YOU understand it.”

    Yeah… for someone who claims to have it all figured out, you are very light on actual content. In fact, your position seems to be completely void of any content other than you cannot conceive how life originated without a god involved. Do you have ANYTHING else, at all?

  620. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 620.Anonymous said …

    DPK

    In fact, your position seems to be completely void of any content other than you cannot conceive how life originated without a god involved.

    And there’s the crux of the problem. Sweetness will not and cannot state a position on even the simplest and most basic of science related topics because it would destroy his god position. He

    Timeframes? Sweetpea response: NONE. Avoid answering. Deflect.
    MICRO-EVOLUTION? Sweetpea response: Stall. Silence. Stall some more.
    At least he’s onboard with the 99% similarity between the human and chimp genomes!!!! An amazing accomplishment, in my opinion.

    My dad happened to be a xtian. He always told me that those people who are looking for the Ark, or spend their days cherry picking what science to use to support their belief in god are not true xtians. He LOVED the sciences…..embraced them all and loved HONESTLY discussing any topic. He KNEW that a belief in a god was 100% an act of faith. Didn’t require any material proof. I understand that.

  621. on 08 Mar 2014 at 12:10 am 621.DPK said …

    “He KNEW that a belief in a god was 100% an act of faith. Didn’t require any material proof. I understand that.”

    I understand that as well, and I can actually respect that. That’s why they call it faith, after all. As Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so. ” I have lots of Christian friends, although most are what I’d describe as Sunday Christians. I also have a lot of Jewish friends, many of them are atheist or agnostic, and for them Judaism is more of a culture than a religion. (Personally, I think the holocaust made a lot of Jews realize god was just a completely imaginary construct… But that’s another topic). Many of my Christian friends believe out of social convention more than anything, and disdain wack-o’s like Hor, who frankly, embarrass them. That is why I so enjoy watching him dance and squirm, and the funniest part is he thinks he is making an actual case for his god. The truth is he has probably caused more people to reject theism than any atheist here.

  622. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:06 am 622.alex said …

    i guess jacoby kindred is not a real xtian. so, along with the morality checklist, where is messenger’s real xtian checklist?

    i want to see if the pope passes it. i suspect the potus won’t pass. or even the other idiot, hor.

  623. on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:50 pm 623.alex said …

    since the idiot messenger won’t publish his list, i’ll start it for him. here’s the draft of messenger’s true test for real xtianity. you must believe, otherwise you’re not a true xtian.

    1) The word eternal in the bible is used to stress the long amount of time that bad people spend in it. Eventually they will be releases and they will be sent to purgatory until they learn kindness and love, then they will go to heaven.

    2) rapists may marry their virgin victims. this may be considered his punishment.

    3) all animals that ever existed, all descended from the animals that were in the ark.

    4) Theoretical physics is not very helpful to humanity. The earth had done fine on its own and we have no need for theoretical physics

    5) This world is full of so much greed, laziness(liberal idiot like Obama who want the government to take care of them), murders, thiefs, and liars(like Obama).

    …more to come… xtian readers? y’all agree to this shit? pipe up..

  624. on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:56 pm 624.DPK said …

    “i guess jacoby kindred is not a real xtian.”

    Judge not, lest ye be not judged. Only Messy, the messenger of god, can declare who is a true christian and who is not. Plus, all he has to do is repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness and he gets to spend eternity in heaven…. I assume heaven for him will be a golden palace full of little girls… LOL……..

    After all, you can’t explain how DNA was first formed, so it must be true, right? Makes sense……

  625. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:28 pm 625.Anonymous said …

    I feel so bad for whoever created this page. We are called to specifically tell everyone about Gods greatness and you are instead attempting to convince people that he is imaginary. I originally considered it, but your very first proof has a major mistake in it! You can’t just say that little prayer for God to heal everyone of cancer. You are a tiny, worthless, nobody so why should he listen to that prayer. Your evidence is awful especially since he says you must have faith for these prayers and such to actually work. You can’t just up and decide to tell people he is imaginary just because of your little fake prayer you typed up. God is returning any day now! I dont think he’ll be pleased to know that you were trying to drive his people away from him. Matthew 7:13 “Enter through a narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction(eternal burning),and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life(eternally), and only a few find it.

  626. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:59 pm 626.alex said …

    “We are called to specifically tell everyone about Gods greatness and you are instead attempting to convince people that he is imaginary.”

    you are not called, you dumb motherfucker. if god had planned for you to come to this page then he also planned for the atheists to call out your xtian bull fucking shit, how the fuck are we supposed to do something different?

    dumbass, leave the gays and women alone. go take messenger’s xtian test and see if you pass it.

    here’s his latest piles of shit:
    http://goo.gl/vTlyJI
    http://goo.gl/V4C9dN

    see if you agree with his nonsense.

  627. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:31 pm 627.the messemger said …

    623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.

    This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.

  628. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:33 pm 628.the messemger said …

    Alex, you support evolution, yet you reject my theory that recodnizes evolution of animals. You are strange.

  629. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:35 pm 629.alex said …

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.”

    is this part of your xtian test? if people don’t agree with you on this, are they a true xtian?

    btw. your latest post is added to your pile of shit, here: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    spin it all your want, it still says, it lieu of prison, you may marriage the vic, yah?

  630. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:37 pm 630.alex said …

    “Alex, you support evolution, yet you reject my theory that recodnizes evolution of animals.”

    bind yourself thru marriage, instead of a prison sentence, and you call me strange?

    your pile of shit again: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  631. on 09 Mar 2014 at 2:47 am 631.The messenger said …

    633.alex, yes brother, you are strange. You support evolution then you oppose it. You are extremely strange.

  632. on 09 Mar 2014 at 3:25 am 632.DPK said …

    Um… I think it’s the Ark fairy tale that he has a problem with…haha.
    Hey messy, how long ago do you think the flood story supposedly happened?
    How much time do you think it took for however many species that could have fit on a boat to “evolve” into the 9 million species we have today?
    Hahahaha……
    Hey sweetie… Messy says evolution is true… As is the story of Noah’s Ark. Do you agree with him?

  633. on 09 Mar 2014 at 4:10 am 633.The messenger said …

    635.DPK, just wondering(I am not mocking you when I ask this question, I am honestly wondering) does your estiment of 9 million include the aquatic animals?

    To be completely honest I do not know how long ago the flood happened, but I do recognize that it could have happened that way.

  634. on 09 Mar 2014 at 4:31 am 634.DPK said …

    Yes, that would include marine life, because that much rain would have changed ocean waters salinity, ph, temp and chemistry and would have killed off most marine life, in addition to very sensitive coral reefs which have existed for about 250 million years. Plus god said he was going to destroy everything with the flood, so Noah would have had to have taken 2 of every sea creature too… Must have been an impressive aquarium system he had on that boat.

    Now, make an estimate… 6 thousand years, 10 thousand, 50 thousand? I mean it had to have been recent enough that a man would have had tools, and knowledge enough of math and engineering to build a wooden boat 450 feet long… About 1/3rd the length of a modern super carrier. Could it have been a hundred thousand years ago?
    You must have some idea?
    How many generations of creatures do you think it took for them to “evolve” into all the species we have today? Remember, “A” says species never change into new species… That is impossible. Is he wrong?

  635. on 09 Mar 2014 at 2:56 pm 635.alex said …

    “alex, yes brother, you are strange. You support evolution then you oppose it. You are extremely strange.”

    thats because you’re a dumb motherfucker. you don’t understand my simple posts yet you try to be the Sole interpreter of the bullshit, conflicting, idiotic bible?

    since you already know what atheists are and what they do, why not publish your true Xtian Checklist? coz, you know it’s bullshit. you motherfuckers just love to sling that “no true scotsman” shit because it gives you a way out to call out anybody as not being a true xtian.

    here’s your shit list again. your latest turd at the bottom of the pile. http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  636. on 09 Mar 2014 at 7:44 pm 636.Anonymous said …

    From little “a”:

    IF macro is true, no biggie. My worldview doesn’t change a bit. JUST MORE PROOF A CREATOR EXISTS

    Strange comment, Sweetpea. It sounds like the beginning of your defeat, or an attempt to gently dissipate the fog of cognitive dissonance which you presently operate in. I am wondering how The Theory of Evolution would be “MORE PROOF” of your god or any god? And if it truly were “MORE PROOF” wouldn’t you honestly and objectively investigate…..after all, everyone wants “MORE PROOF” in whatever position they take.

    How could you possibly know in advance that your findings would lead to “MORE PROOF OF A CREATOR”? Is it possible that what you find could weaken or destroy your faith in a god? For you, I doubt it. You are so drunk on the holy spirit that you are never sobering up. You’ve just traded one spirit for another. ;-)

  637. on 09 Mar 2014 at 8:48 pm 637.DPK said …

    No answer from Messy as to how long ago this great flood happened… and how all the species on the earth today managed to “evolve” from the few that could have fit on a 450 foot long wooden boat. I mean “A” says it couldn’t have happened even in 3,500 million years, yet Messy says it happened in perhaps a few thousand. Not to mention how all human life currently on the planet… some 7,000 million of us could have descended from just 6 people, all of the same race and related to one another, in just a few thousand years! Must have been an awful lot of begetting going on…. LOL.
    Not to mention the other problems… like the quantity of water needed to completely flood the earth is estimated at 3 times the total volume of water on the earth today… where did it come from, and where did it go? The atmosphere could not possibly hold enough water vapor to rain the amount of water needed to flood the earth in 40 days. It would be roughly 400 FEET (not inches) of rain per day, everywhere at once. If the atmosphere were to hold that much water, it would need to be over 500 degrees and the temperature and pressure alone would kill everything, including Noah on his magic boat, long before anything could drown.
    I know I know, there is a simple explanation… “god did it” and god can do anything, including having a perfect knowledge of events past present and future, while at the same time having the ability to change it at will, meaning having the power to change events he already has a perfect knowledge of without violating his perfect knowledge.
    Messy, I have always known you are a singularly simple minded person… but seriously????

  638. on 09 Mar 2014 at 9:32 pm 638.alex said …

    messenger’s greatest hits. for the reader’s lols, distilled from http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    1)Slavery is allowed in the bible.. (messenger likes it, go Confederate States! State Rights, damnit!)

    2)Redemption is a hard process. Getting forgiveness from GOD is an easy thing (hard and easy?)

    3)GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will (we are free to do what god knows will happen?)

    4)GOD knows our decisions before we make them because he is highly familiar with us. (see #3)

    5)GOD is so familiar with all of our details that he already knows, without a doubt, how we will react to a certain thing and therefore he knows what decisions will be during a certain situation. (see #3)

    6) the witnesses of the “miracle of the sun” reported to have seen a large disk in the sky as bright as the SUN. Some of them assumed that it was the sun, but that was never confirmed. The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there. (heh heh)

    7)There is one consistent detail in most of the witnesses accounts. A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into the earth drying all of the rain water off of the crowed. (wow!)

    8) the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking. (ass? read the book, messenger)

    9)my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal (a messenger original)

    10)he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. (because he already knew he won’t?)

    11)GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it. (he forgets? dat why he kept killing the people?)

    12)Yes the women were being forced to marry or become servants, but that does not mean that rape occurred. (yeah right, no sex expected, yay?)

    13)I never said that “eternal” does not mean forever (see #9, hell is not eternal)

    14)the action of forcing someone to marry someone is not rape (see #12)

    15)The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help. (she’s fucked if she’s mute?)

  639. on 09 Mar 2014 at 10:11 pm 639.DPK said …

    “15)The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help. (she’s fucked if she’s mute?)”

    Apparently she is also fucked if the rapist says, “If you scream, I’ll kill you.” Oh well, hell for you lady.

    You forgot he also said it is sometimes ok to kill someone, like if they are bad, but it is NEVER ok to tell a lie, even if it means saving someone’s life.
    “I cannot tell a lie Mr. Gestapo Stormtrooper, or Jesus will cry. The jews are hiding in the basement.”
    And it is ok to make someone your slave and FORCE them to work for you and provide for your family, as long as you are unable to work yourself! Hey forget about having to fund social security or disability…. just give everyone who can no longer work their own slave. There are still plenty of pagans around to round up, and after all, god is cool with it.
    He also said you don’t have to believe in god or accept Jesus to go to heaven, just be a good person. But if you don’t believe in god, presumably you better not say anything about it because if you cause someone else to doubt god… well…. eternal hell awaits. But don’t despair, eternity doesn’t last forever, and you’ll still get your happy ending.
    Jesus and God are the same person, but when Jesus spoke to god in the third person, asking him to do things, he was just thinking out loud.
    Where does he come up with this shit…..????

    I remember a while back some drive by theist stopped on this forum in the middle of the discussion and announced she was going to pray for us to find our way back to the love of god and made the statement, “I go to a christian school and I’m pretty sure God never commanded anyone to kill anyone in the bible.” After I suggested she actually READ the bible before she came here to tell us all what is in it, she left, never to return….. THIS is the mentality you deal with when you believe in fairytales.

  640. on 09 Mar 2014 at 11:17 pm 640.alex said …

    more funnies from messenger’s other book http://goo.gl/V4C9dN

    1)GOD will answer all of our prays, if you pray for good things to happen, such as love, world peace, happyness, kindness, and no more decease. (if unaswered, it’s god’s will? and the point of prayer?)

    2)The word eternal in the bible is used to stress the long amount of time that bad people spend in it. Eventually they will be releases and they will be sent to purgatory until they learn kindness and love, then they will go to heaven. (nuff said)

    3)Atheists oppose Christianity and Judaism (only? atheists believe in some other god?)

    4)No one can deny the fact that atheists have a long history of murder and hate, because it is a fact.(sea turtle atheists, including xtians, were not good guys. weren’t there a lot of those)

    5)I am simply stating that atheists share the same immoral mindset and beliefs that hitler and stalin did. (again sea turtle atheists, including xtians, all share the same beliefs?)

    6)I have read the entire bible from cover to cover and I have yet to see a part in the bible when GOD ever “promoted” slavery or murder. (quoting messenger: “Slavery is allowed in the bible..” and murder is so all over the bible, i won’t even quote it. and yes, messenger never heard of the donkey talking)

    7)I never claimed that the earth is only “6000? years old. I know that it is older. FYI, the bible does not state how old the earth is. (he knows better than the bible, which he says doesn’t state how old. add all the generations, and figure it out, hence the young earth stance)

    8)Can you prove that GOD didn’t create the universe? If he didn’t then where did the universe come from. (god of the gaps or goddidit)

    9)Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us life? (argument from stupidity)

    10)Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us laws? (argumentum stupendum)

    11)GOD planned out everything in a specific order for one reason, to teach us right from wrong. Life is a perfect test and it is playing itself out perfectly. (and we have free will in this master plan?)

    12)GOD planned from mankind to mess up, so we could later learn from our mistakes. (planned obsolesense, but lessons learned for some)

    12)GOD does not have an easy job (ha ha, good one. dat why he’s got messenger to interpret for him)

  641. on 10 Mar 2014 at 12:32 am 641.Sweetness said …

    “It sounds like the beginning of your defeat”

    I sure hope so! All I need is evidence/proof that macroecolution has and does take place using the SM.

    Maybe evidence of a fish evolving into a bird? Something really cool we can all see.

    I have never claimed macroevolution cannot happen (one of Dippity Dews childish lies). A Creator would have no problem with such a process. I contend zero proof exists which can withstand the SM. I am ready to believe. Bring it on!

    lol!!!!!

  642. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:26 am 642.The messenger said …

    637.DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry. So how would a flood change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry of the sea water?

    Your claim about the coral reefs 250 million years ago is not relevant in any way, due to the fact that we have no idea when the flood happened.

    GOD specified that only birds and the “creeping things of the ground” were to be taken on the ark. Fish were not included in it.

    I cannot make any estiments on any of those things.

    How do you know if the ark was 450 feet long?

  643. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:47 am 643.alex said …

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    dude.

  644. on 10 Mar 2014 at 3:15 am 644.DPK said …

    637.DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry. So how would a flood change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry of the sea water?
    Uh, what? Haha.. Failed chemistry I see.

    Your claim about the coral reefs 250 million years ago is not relevant in any way, due to the fact that we have no idea when the flood happened.

    Well, it couldn’t have happened 250 million years ago, because there were no humans 250 million years ago.

    GOD specified that only birds and the “creeping things of the ground” were to be taken on the ark. Fish were not included in it.

    Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?

    I cannot make any estiments on any of those things.
    How do you know if the ark was 450 feet long?

    Because it gives it’s measurements in the bible… I thought you read it? Lol

  645. on 10 Mar 2014 at 3:46 am 645.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    I contend zero proof exists which can withstand the SM

    That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM. You are NOT a scientist; if you were, you’d understand why the Theory of Evolution is accepted everywhere outside the US deep south (aka the bible belt) -Home to the IDiot movement and hillbillies.

    You’re so scientific that you cannot even explain or define (in your opinion, of course) what MICRO-EVOLUTION is. Asking YOU for information about science is the best way to get you to dance around frantically.

  646. on 10 Mar 2014 at 12:53 pm 646.Sweetness said …

    “Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?”

    Yes Dippity Dew, where did they come from? Did Campbell’s oyster noodle mix just the right way? Lol!!!

    “That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM.”

    Always willing go learn. Give me you definition”

    “Theory of Evolution is accepted everywhere”

    In the US ToE without Gods guidance is the least popular theory. GOD is accepted by a much larger than ToE”. Check out the Gallup poll.

    “Home to the IDiot”

    That would be Seattle, California. The rest is ad homenim. Sigh! The last gasp of a dying man, the hillbilly attack.

    “in your opinion, of course) what MICRO-EVOLUTION”

    I don’t have an opinion. It is the obvious definition. Dippity Dew found it but you cannot? Lol!!!!

  647. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:47 pm 647.freddies_dead said …

    592.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy’s anti r*pe laws are not specified to just the Israelites. they apply to all people in the new covenant.

    No messy, we’ve seen how the Bible allows the rape of conquered tribes i.e. those that aren’t Israelites. Plus Deuteronomy is indeed aimed specifically at the Israelite people – it is Moses’ speeches direct to the Israelites on the plains of Moab.

    A lot of groups in ancient times have committed r*pe after concurring a people. But the Israelites did not do that, because GOD specifically prohibited r*pe ,in Deuteronomy.

    Now you’re just ignoring the parts of the Bible – the ones that condone rape – you don’t like. Your cherry picking is duly noted.

  648. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:48 pm 648.freddies_dead said …

    593.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, where in the bible does it say that “virgin Israelite women” can be r*ped?

    In Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29. Deuteronomy is directed at Israelites specifically. In 28-29 it states quite clearly that a man can rape a virgin woman and then, if he’s caught, all he’ll have to do is pay her father 50 shekels and marry his victim.

    You make crazy claims, but you do not provide proof.

    Oh, you silly old pot you.

  649. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:50 pm 649.freddies_dead said …

    595 & 615.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, the bible does not punish a woman that calls out for help while being r*ped, even if she is not heard.

    The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help.

    If she cried out for help(heard or not) she will not be punished.

    No messy, if no-one hears she is assumed to have not cried out and is stoned to death because of it. If she cried out and no-one heard or the attacker prevented her from crying out is irrelevant – no catchee no cryee according to your Bible.

    Lastly, that passage does not command stoning,

    It really does.

    and it does not say that humans are to carry out the punishment.

    Odd, in verse 21 it states quite clearly that it will be the men of the city who do the stoning of adulterous women, are we to suddenly assume that it won’t be those same men carrying out the stoning of the rape victim who didn’t scream loud enough just 3 verses later? You really are being stupid about this.

    And lastly, I already proved that the stoning is metaphorical.

    No, you haven’t. You’ve simply ignored the passages – such as Deuteronomy 22:21 where it states very specifically that “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die” – in favour of your own bizarre interpretation that it’s somehow “metaphorical” – that the stones they’re commanded to stone her with aren’t actual stones and she won’t actually die like the verse says she will. I’m pretty sure your Bible has something to say about lying, but maybe that was metaphorical as well, eh?

  650. on 10 Mar 2014 at 4:01 pm 650.DPK said …

    “Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?”
    “Yes Dippity Dew, where did they come from?”
    We were actually talking about how they came to be AFTER the flood that killed everything on the earth except what was on the ark with good old Capt. Noah. Messy says there were no fish or marine life o the ark…. try to stay on topic there Sweetie Pie. I know it’s hard for you
    “That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM.”
    Always willing go learn. Give me you definition”
    You’ve been offered this before… remember? You refused to “wade though it”. If you want the reader’s digest explanation of the scientific method, and why it supports the theory of common decent, visit talkorigins (dot) org. Check the article by Douglas Theobold titled 29+ evidences for Macro evolution, then come back with your point by point refutation… don’t forget your sources!!!
    But you won’t…. haha
    Hey… your buddy Messy says your full of shit. He says all the species we have on the earth today evolved from the handful that were on the Ark with Noah a few thousand years ago! Isn’t that amazing? One of you has to be be wrong… is it he, or you?

  651. on 10 Mar 2014 at 4:41 pm 651.Sweetness said …

    “We were actually talking about how they came to be AFTER the flood that killed everything on the earth”

    How did they come to be from the start? That might be you answer for both. I think Dippity Dew still believes the Campbell’s soup theory for how fish cane to be. Soup, lightning, chemicals bonding, growing gills, growing funs, wallah!

    And you think building an Ark is absurd!

    lol!!!!!!

    Its funny how everyone claims to know the SM but no one can seem to provide it! Lol!!!!!

  652. on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:03 pm 652.alex said …

    “How did they come to be from the start?”

    the turtle made them. care to refute the holy turtle book? we both know the soup theory is bunk.

    all your non-turtle believers, otherwise known as atheists better recognize, or else!

  653. on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:26 pm 653.DPK said …

    “How did they come to be from the start?”

    Asked and answered, many times. No one knows. You seem to imply that you do. Tell us.

    “That might be you answer for both.”

    “Might be”? LOL… explain it to us.

  654. on 10 Mar 2014 at 11:52 pm 654.alex said …

    “Its funny how everyone claims to know the SM..”

    funny shit aint it? you have no fucking idea, but you won’t look it up.

    and when asked what you think it is, you won’t answer because you have no idea, yet you reject every fucking thing.

    same shit with fossil dating, aint it? your biblical earth age is so far off, you won’t even dare discuss it. so what do you fuckers do? oh, radioactive decay is so unreliable and until the accuracy is spot on, it’s suspect. never mind that even with an error of plus/minus 5 millions years, the biblical shit is nowhere near the age of the dated fossils.

    “DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    another messenger gem: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  655. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:11 am 655.The messenger said …

    647.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    647.DPK, humans know more about the moon than they do about their own planet, so therefore how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?

    647.DPK, the fish on the earth today evolved from the original fish that were around during the flood.

    The Bible does not say that the ark was 450 feet long. It say that that the ark is three hundred cubits.

  656. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:22 am 656.The messenger said …

    650.freddies_dead, no part of the bible allows rape of conquered people.

    There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.

  657. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:27 am 657.The messenger said …

    651.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29 does not say that raping Israelite women is ok. it states that IF a Israelite woman is raped, the rapist must marry her and pay her father.

  658. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:44 am 658.alex said …

    “if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.”

    blindfolded you won’t be able to tell the original cup of salt water from the DILUTED one? you dumb motherfucker.

    “how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?”

    it’s called knowledge, you dumbass. even your cousin hor knows this, but won’t acknowledge. he won’t even admit that he thinks the earth is around 10,000 years. what about you, you dumbfuck? how old is the earth? you believe the 10,000 year old earth, per your bible?

    “There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.”

    pointed out many times, but your dumbass is incapable. remember the talking donkey you denied?

    again, your shitpile collection: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  659. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:51 am 659.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, that passage does not command her to be stone, and it does not say anything about assuming that she did not cry out or not.

    If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.

  660. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:54 am 660.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.

  661. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 661.alex said …

    “If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.”

    the nonsense just doesn’t register with you, does it? that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. if the woman is mute and she cries out in her mind, your god would supposedly hear her anyways, so what the fuck is the crying out for help for?

    your excuses knows no bounds and once again, it’s in the dumbass messenger joke collection: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  662. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:59 am 662.alex said …

    “652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.”

    you’ve said before that you weren’t the sole interpreter of the bible, yet you continually spout like you’re some kind of biblical expert.

    what are your credentials and does the catholic church know about your interpretations? write them and send them your shitlist and see what they say. here are your quotes. http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    don’t be afraid to click on it. it’s all your shit with the original wwgha links. i’m sure you’ve clicked on all those porn links, so don’t be afraid. it’s all your glory in one big collection.

  663. on 11 Mar 2014 at 2:27 am 663.DPK said …

    47.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    Wrong again messy. Add this to the long list of things you think you know about which you are completely clueless.
    I’d suggest maybe you go back and try to finish high school this time. In the meantime, you have demonstrated the prime requirement for religous belief… Ignorance couple with a willingness to ignore the obvious. LOL

  664. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:55 am 664.freddies_dead said …

    658.The messenger said …

    650.freddies_dead, no part of the bible allows rape of conquered people.

    There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.

    Except for the ones I’ve given you of course. You can keep denying what your Holy book says but it’ll do you no good when others can read it for themselves.

  665. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:56 am 665.freddies_dead said …

    651.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29 does not say that raping Israelite women is ok. it states that IF a Israelite woman is raped, the rapist must marry her and pay her father.

    So basically giving men the right to rape virgin Israelite women as long as they’re OK with possibly having to pay for their transgression by buying their victim and marrying her if he’s caught raping her. An utterly disgusting concept that could only come from some backward religion like Christianity.

  666. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:56 am 666.freddies_dead said …

    661.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, that passage does not command her to be stone, and it does not say anything about assuming that she did not cry out or not.

    If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.

    No, it’s the woman raped in the field who gets a free pass. For the woman in the city, things aren’t so great. For her the passage reads quite clearly: “and ye shall stone them with stones that they die”. That’s a command to stone both the rapist and his victim – her “because she cried not”. It assumes right there that, because she was in the city and no-one heard, there was no cry, regardless of whether the poor woman was able to cry out or not.

  667. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:57 am 667.freddies_dead said …

    662.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    I’ve given you chapter and verse from your own Holy book and you choose to deny the words that are allegedly from your God. When a passage states that “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die” it means exactly that. It does not mean that they will point at her harshly until she’s suitably ashamed of herself. It doesn’t mean they’ll throw jelly at her. It doesn’t mean she’ll be let off with a stern warning. It means the men of her city will throw actual stones at her until she’s actually dead.

    There really is no point continuing this conversation when you insist on denying that words mean what they actually mean.

  668. on 11 Mar 2014 at 2:57 pm 668.freddies_dead said …

    657.The messenger said (to DPK) …

    647.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    Is the salinity just metaphorical on your world?

    647.DPK, humans know more about the moon than they do about their own planet, so therefore how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?

    Evidence. Surely you’ve heard of it? Or is it all just metaphor on your world?

    647.DPK, the fish on the earth today evolved from the original fish that were around during the flood.

    So you actually believe in hyper-evolution?

    The Bible does not say that the ark was 450 feet long. It say that that the ark is three hundred cubits.

    And a cubit equals? Or are cubits just metaphors as well?

    You are the worst Humpty Dumpty I’ve ever actually encountered. Seen as words mean what you choose them to mean can you please give your definitions of “salinity”, “evidence” and “cubits” in order that we’re able to actually discuss things coherently?

  669. on 11 Mar 2014 at 4:02 pm 669.DPK said …

    “If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.”

    What a guy… he will not punish her for being RAPED! He won’t help her either, huh? Why is he letting her get raped in the first place Messy? Is it a “test” to see if she maybe really wants to be raped? If that’s so, doesn’t god already know that? Speaking of which, since god’s plan determines everything, isn’t her getting raped just a part of god’s plan? If so, why would she cry out for help? That would be going against god’s plan for her.

    So, if you dilute sea water with fresh water that doesn’t change the salinity huh? Did you read that in the bible too?

  670. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:10 pm 670.The messenger said …

    664.alex, if the woman does not cry out for her(wheither out loud or in her mind) it shows that she has some love and respect for her self, and a desire to stop that awful thing from happening to her.

    If she doesn’t, she is being cowardly or she simply does not care.

  671. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:17 pm 671.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, the law means that rape is not allowed. But if someone breaks the “no rape law” the rapist is suppose to repent for his crime by binding himself to her(through marriage) and must pay her father money.

    This is not so much a punishment as it is a chance for redemption for the rapist. He must redeem himself by being a good husband to her for the rest of his life.

  672. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:25 pm 672.The messenger said …

    669.freddies_dead, I understand why you do not understand this. Allow me to help you.

    In biblical times a field was where not many people are, so therefore her voice would not be heard by her fellow citizens. But in a city, people would here her vocal cries and be alerted of the injustice done to her.

    If she is a mute and cries out in her head, she will not be punished, because it is not her fault that she couldn’t be heard.

  673. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:29 pm 673.The messenger said …

    670.freddies_dead , many times I have presented you with text evidence that proves the stoning commands to be not literal. Yet you ignore all of it and continue to cherry pick verses and interpret them without looking at the surrounding text.

  674. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:31 pm 674.The messenger said …

    671.freddies_dead, I honestly do not know how much a cubit is. And no, it is not a metaphor, because their is no evidence to suggest or prove that it is metaphorical.

  675. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:36 pm 675.The messenger said …

    672.DPK, he wont punish her for being raped (because she is the victim, and not at fault), but he will punish her if she does not show defiance(crying out, either in her head or vocal) to the person raping her.

    If the woman does cry out(wheither out loud or in her mind) it shows that she has some love and respect for her self, and a desire to stop that awful thing from happening to her.

  676. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:40 pm 676.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, disregard comment 673, because I accidentally put he word “NOT” in the following sentence.

    “664.alex, if the woman does not cry out for her”

  677. on 12 Mar 2014 at 2:49 am 677.alex said …

    messenger, go fuck yourself. then for redemption, you can marry yourself, but you must scream in your heart because god knows if you’re sincere and will forgive you. now drink half of a glass of salty water, refill it with fresh water and taste it. did it taste the same? of course it did, because you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  678. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:25 pm 678.freddies_dead said …

    673.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, the law means that r*pe is not allowed.

    Actually, nowhere in the Bible is there a specific prohibition on rape per se.

    But if someone breaks the “no r*pe law” the r*pist is suppose to repent for his crime by binding himself to her(through marriage) and must pay her father money.

    As stated, there is no specific “no rape law”. Various verses give various commands regarding the sexual mistreatment of women – from those condoning the rape of women of conquered tribes, to the verses which punish attackers who target women who are already promised to other men, to the ones where men who attack women who are not betrothed only need to pay the father and marry their victim if they’re caught.

    Tell me, what was wrong with a commandment that states “thou shall not rape”?

    This is not so much a punishment as it is a chance for redemption for the r*pist. He must redeem himself by being a good husband to her for the rest of his life.

    The morality behind your claim that a rapist is given a chance to repent by marrying his victim and paying the father for sullying his property is truly disgusting. Oh it’s a punishment all right … for the woman. There’s nothing that states he has to be a good husband either, just that he can’t divorce her. Basically it’s a life sentence for the woman. The rapist gets to carry on raping her until one of them dies. It’s pretty much what we expect from pre-scientific goat-herders with little, if any, respect for women.

  679. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:27 pm 679.freddies_dead said …

    674.The messenger said …

    669.freddies_dead, I understand why you do not understand this. Allow me to help you.

    You condescending prick. I understand it just fine. You’re just pissed that I don’t accept your tortuous mental gymnastics because a simple reading of the text is ample.

    In biblical times a field was where not many people are, so therefore her voice would not be heard by her fellow citizens. But in a city, people would here her vocal cries and be alerted of the injustice done to her.

    Lol, bullshit. Like there aren’t areas in cities where no-one would hear and times when the woman is unable to cry out – through fear or simply because her attacker prevents it. If they’re not caught the woman is assumed to have failed to cry out.

    If she is a mute and cries out in her head, she will not be punished, because it is not her fault that she couldn’t be heard.

    W00t! Mute women rejoice! What about those who aren’t mute but were prevented from crying out? That’s right, it’s a stoning for them … and not a non-literal one either.

  680. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:29 pm 680.freddies_dead said …

    675.The messenger said …

    670.freddies_dead , many times I have presented you with text evidence that proves the stoning commands to be not literal. Yet you ignore all of it and continue to cherry pick verses and interpret them without looking at the surrounding text.

    You’ve done nothing of the sort, but for giggles lets have a look at the surrounding text in Deuteronomy shall we?

    13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

    Well this doesn’t mention stoning being a metaphor…

    14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

    Nor does this…

    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

    Nope…

    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

    Erm, no….

    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

    Still nothing…

    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

    Ah, so they have other options than stoning then? This is promising…

    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

    We’ve seen financial punishment before. I notice you didn’t claim that was metaphorical…

    20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

    Ooo, someone’s in trouble…

    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    Did you all see the metaphorical stoning in that verse? No, me neither. I saw a commandment to throw stones at a woman until she’s dead but I missed the bit where it was actually a commandment to say things to her that only make her suitably ashamed… maybe they come later eh, messy?

    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    So it’s death again, for adultery this time … metaphorical death? I’m not seeing anything to suggest it, are you? Didn’t think so…

    23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    Another chance for some non-literal stoning surely?

    24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    Erm, that definitely reads like a literal stoning to me – nothing in the surrounding text to suggest otherwise … it seems context is pissing on your chips messy.

    25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

    Not literally die surely, messy? It’s metaphorical, yes?

    26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

    27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

    Erm, context isn’t helping that fella, seems like he’s for an actual death then…

    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    Another chance for a non-literal stoning?

    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    Oh wait, no. He’s literally getting away with it. Is this what you meant by a non-literal stoning? You know, when stoning isn’t mentioned at all and all he gets is a small fine and the chance to rape the same woman again and again?

    Maybe I’m not cherry picking the verses correctly, messy. You’ll have to give us a crash course on how to cherry pick properly.

  681. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:30 pm 681.freddies_dead said …

    676.The messenger said …

    671.freddies_dead, I honestly do not know how much a cubit is.

    Lazy. Very lazy. A quick Google gives us the answer. A cubit is approximately 1.5 feet (450mm). Yes it’s not exact because a cubit was defined as the length of the arm from elbow to tip of the middle finger but it’s a reasonable enough approximation. Even if we consider the longer cubit length of 500mm the ark would be somewhere in the range 450 to 500 feet. See? It’s quite easy to look things up so you aren’t ignorant about them, messy. You should try it some time.

    And no, it is not a metaphor, because their is no evidence to suggest or prove that it is metaphorical.

    Just like there’s no evidence to suggest that, when the Bible says “ye shall stone them with stones that they die”, it’s being all metaphorical about it.

  682. on 12 Mar 2014 at 4:35 pm 682.DPK said …

    Freddie… god could very well have been describing a metaphorical cubit, in which case the ark certainly could have been any size. The flood however, was not metaphorical. That really happened. That is why we have rainbows. Are you on drugs?

    LOL….
    Seems even Sweetcakes wishes to distance himself from Messy’s mess of contradictions and mind numbing mental contortions.

  683. on 12 Mar 2014 at 7:03 pm 683.Sweetness said …

    Which is funnier? Atheist interpreting Scripture or alex’s inability to communicate without profanity?

    lol! Its a toss up!

    Do Atheists use Every Atheists guide to the Bible blog for interpretation?

  684. on 12 Mar 2014 at 8:24 pm 684.DPK said …

    No, what is ACTUALLY funny is the idea that the supreme creator of the universe would need the likes of YOU or Messy to explain to us what he ACTUALLY means. That’s a riot!! LOL…….

    D

  685. on 12 Mar 2014 at 9:26 pm 685.alex said …

    i amuse you? you make me puke, dumbass motherfuker. i say some obvious bullshit in here and i guarantee it, the atheists will let me know it. you, on the other hand sit silently by, complicit, while the other motherfucker, messenger, spout off shit after shit and not a peep from you. his shit is so despicable, you just know he’ll never post them publicly on a site where his identity is known.

    atheists interpreting the bible? does that make sense? the fuckhead, messenger tries to jam his shit on an atheist blog, no less and when his crap is refuted using the same bullshit bible, you come back with that whiny, weak, sarcastic shit?

    at least my profanity is directed to dumb motherfuckers. what is the purpose of your xtian regurgitation? convert atheists? or you’re trying muster up the nerve to attempt another fluff job on yourself.

    dumbass.

  686. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:07 pm 686.The messenger said …

    687.DPK, he does not need us, but he wants us to preach his message so that we and the rest of mankind will better understand it.

  687. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:10 pm 687.The messenger said …

    680.alex, I see that you are oblivious to all logic and reason, so therefore I will no longer debate with the likes of you and your stupidity.

  688. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:30 pm 688.alex said …

    “so therefore I will no longer debate with the likes of you and your stupidity.”

    you dumbass. i wouldn’t debate motherfuckers like you anymore than i would debate ufo or yeti believers. at least i have enough common sense to know about salt water dilution which totally just escapes you. you failed the first item in the stupidity test. stop and go home, asshole.

    you apologize for the for stoning bible shit, but yet you steadfastly cling to the notion of rape marriage? why is that? even in the face of other xtians repudiation, you cling on to the shit? is it your secret fantasy? name a church that believes in your fantasy rape marriage? say what? chirp? the church of messenger, flock of one?

    see, this is not debating. this is me heaping a whole lot of shit on your dumbass. now, move along bitch.

  689. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:47 pm 689.alex said …

    ” It is a savage, sadistic, belief that teaches men to beat their wives (Qur’an (4:34)) and behead all non believers (Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”). Islam is an abomination. It teaches violence and hate (Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other).”

    guess who wrote this shit? not sure if correct, but it doesn’t matter. motherfuckers like messenger quoting the koran is ok with you, but atheists can’t quote the bible?

    well, here is your entire collection of shit, otherwise know as horShit.pdf, uncanny, ain’t.

    readers enjoy hor’s … http://goo.gl/FnWvEP

    curm is probably not him, but you decide.

  690. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:00 pm 690.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, The bible many times speaks of rapists being punished for their actions. Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.

  691. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:08 pm 691.alex said …

    “Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.”

    yeah, whatever, motherfucker, but you just can’t let go of that little tasty tidbit, can’t you. a rapist may marry his victim. your exact words:

    “..if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.”

    too tasty for you, eh? that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who else believes in this shit?

  692. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 692.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, there no verses in the bible that command the rape of concurred women, or any women for that matter.

    You posted verses about people being concurred and made to follow the Israelites, and then you state that rape was commanded, even though no such command ever took place. You assume that rape was commanded, but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of rape.

  693. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:14 pm 693.The messenger said …

    682.freddies_dead, I was not being condescending, and I am not the one that is angry. You are the only one here that is angry. I simply want to help you, but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.

  694. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:19 pm 694.alex said …

    ” but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of rape.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you stated

    “Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape”

    granted this following verse is not a command, but it is a bullshit rape loophole, which motherfuckers like you, gleefully (fantasy) point out, but predictably, too cowardly to execute, for obvious reasons.

    “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”

    if the motherfucking god, didn’t want you to rape, why the trivial, inexpensive, nonsensical loophole.

    wonder why the laws of the land do not even resemble your fantasy? it’s good that nobody believes in the shit that motherfuckers like you, do.

    see, this is not a debate. it’s a blistering heap of shit on your deserving stone age, ass.

  695. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:23 pm 695.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.

  696. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:27 pm 696.alex said …

    “but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.”

    maybe so, but you, otoh, insist on spewing fantasy rape shit that you know would be criminal if carried out. your honor, i, messenger, plead marriage in lieu of incarceration. bileble says so.

    hate? rape and then proposing marriage is beyond hate, it’s despicable and bothersome. that’s why even your homies are silent on this, yet you persist.

    now who’s the brat? you keep insisting on this rape marriage nonsense even when most xtians have abandoned the notion. why? that porn making you feel guilty, is that it?

  697. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:36 pm 697.alex said …

    “John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    wrong motherfucker. the original sin is bullshit and you’re using it as a premise to support more fucked up bullshit. it doesn’t say “no stoning”.
    it says you may, but either way, remember this little jewel?

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)”

    you just can’t cancel shit and go around making up more shit. go fuck yourself, dumbass.

  698. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:38 pm 698.The messenger said …

    684.freddies_dead, I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.

    Before you start babbling again, listen to this.

    During ancient times certain measurements were not always consistent, such as the foot. Since these early people had a hard time with records the measurements were always somewhat off.

    I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.

  699. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:39 pm 699.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, ps I am not talking about original sin.

  700. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 700.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.
    .

  701. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:54 pm 701.alex said …

    “I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.”

    no, you dumbass. remember your previous post?
    “there are no talking snakes or donkies in the bible.”

    it’s precedent and you can’t hide it. even your own bible shit, you’re too stupid and lazy to go look it up.

    “I am not talking about original sin.”

    yes, you are, you dumbass. you said we all have sinned and you have no proof of this and predictably, you will roll out the original sin.

    “John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    wrong motherfucker. the original sin is bullshit and you’re using it as a premise to support more fucked up bullshit. it doesn’t say “no stoning”.
    it says you may, but either way, remember this little jewel?

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)”

    you just can’t cancel shit and go around making up more shit. go fuck yourself, dumbass.

  702. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 702.The messenger said …

    683..freddies_dead, ps I am not talking about original sin.

  703. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:21 am 703.alex said …

    “except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    “I am not talking about original sin.”

    do retards sin? do autistic people sin? do schizos sin? what’s left?

  704. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 704.The messenger said …

    706.alex, I see that you are acting mature now. I will resume our debate.

    Sin is sin, wheither or not we know it is a sin.

    So yes, retards, autistic, and schizos people do sin. But GOD shows more mercy to them because most of the time they do not know when they sin.

  705. on 13 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 705.Sweetness said …

    “alex, I see that you are acting mature now. I will resume our debate.”

    lol!!!!! Good behavior should be rewarded. But can it last? Nah, not likely.

    Have fun

  706. on 13 Mar 2014 at 11:33 am 706.alex said …

    “Sin is sin, wheither or not we know it is a sin.”

    more predictable garbage. you’re a piece of shit whether you know it or not. how’s that? right back at you? where is your proof that everybody sins? none, nada, so it’s business as usual for your ass. more bullshit.

    if retards, autistic, and schizos people do sin and they don’t know, what’s the need for god? you dumb, motherfucker.

    “Good behavior should be rewarded.”

    are you god? then shut the fuck up.

  707. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:03 pm 707.freddies_dead said …

    684.DPK said …

    Freddie… god could very well have been describing a metaphorical cubit, in which case the ark certainly could have been any size. The flood however, was not metaphorical. That really happened. That is why we have rainbows. Are you on drugs?

    I’m beginning to wish I had some of whatever messy is on…

  708. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:03 pm 708.freddies_dead said …

    692.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, The bible many times speaks of rapists being punished for their actions.

    And many times it simply condones their actions … your point?

    Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.

    It also displays the support of rape and other awful things. You just choose to hand wave those bits away because you don’t like them.

  709. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:07 pm 709.freddies_dead said …

    694.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, there no verses in the bible that command the r*pe of concurred women, or any women for that matter.

    You posted verses about people being concurred and made to follow the Israelites, and then you state that r*pe was commanded, even though no such command ever took place. You assume that r*pe was commanded, but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of r*pe.

    Stop lying about what I have claimed. I never once claimed the Bible commanded rape, rather I pointed out that it condones it in certain circumstances. Women kidnapped after the destruction of their people, forced into marriages and therefore forced to endure rape at the hands of their kidnappers. Virgin girls, raped and then forced to marry their attackers so that they’ll be assualted again and again. Your Bible condones this behaviour. Just like it condones genocide and slavery.

  710. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:07 pm 710.freddies_dead said …

    695.The messenger said …

    682.freddies_dead, I was not being condescending, and I am not the one that is angry. You are the only one here that is angry. I simply want to help you, but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.

    And there you go being a condescending prick once more. If you can’t handle adult conversations don’t enter into them.

  711. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:11 pm 711.freddies_dead said …

    697 & 702.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    So you admit that at least 1 human can stone people (Jesus is claimed to have been wholly man as well as wholly God – and we’re supposed to ignore the inherent contradiction of course).

    However, I note you’ve completely abandoned the context surrounding John 8:1-11 – the context you adamantly claim makes passages like “stone them with stones that they die” metaphorical.

    Firstly it should be noted that the scribes and Pharisees bought the woman before Jesus not to seek justice. If they’d been looking for justice they’d have taken her to the relevant authorities. You have to remember that the scribes and Pharisees didn’t necessarily accept Jesus’ divinity and were looking to rid themselves of this troublesome rabbi. So they tried to get Jesus to denounce the woman and order her death as the law given to Moses prescribes. Of course that would put Jesus at odds with the Roman authorities at the time, as only they had the right to life and death over their subjects. They made a mistake. The law, as given to Moses, called for the death of both parties involved in adultery – where was the man? After all they’d been caught “in the very act”. Jesus’ pronouncement was quite simply that none of the accusers were in a position to stone this woman as they, themselves were breaking the very law they claimed to be seeking to uphold.

    As you’re fond of pointing out, you cannot simply ignore the context, especially when you’re attempting to build some general principle about your ineligibility to profess judgement. Your misappropriation of the text is duly noted.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.

    Maybe you should worry about your own ignorance before seeking to point out what you believe to be shortcomings in others.

  712. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:12 pm 712.freddies_dead said …

    700.The messenger said …

    684.freddies_dead, I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.

    Rubbish. We actually have very reasonable ideas about how long a cubit was despite the fact it wasn’t a set figure – based as it was on a length that would differ from person to person. We certainly have a range of sizes within which we know the cubit fell and we can use that range to determine the size of things measured in cubits in the Bible. This includes the ark.

    Before you start babbling again, listen to this.

    Babbling? When you can’t be bothered to even look something up despite your use of the internet you have no right to suggest anyone who puts you right on your ridiculously ignorant claims is babbling.

    During ancient times certain measurements were not always consistent, such as the foot. Since these early people had a hard time with records the measurements were always somewhat off.

    I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.

    And I pointed out that we actually do know what length a cubit was in many ancient civilisations giving us a reasonable range to work with.

  713. on 13 Mar 2014 at 3:23 pm 713.DPK said …

    “I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.”

    See the torturous lengths one must go to to maintain one’s ridiculous delusion? Any sane person would realize that we have a reasonable range of what a cubit is, and that works out to the ark being described as around 450 feet. Now, maybe it was 550 feet, maybe it was 400. In ANY event, any reasonable person would realize that no matter what size is correct, there is no way a wooden boat that size could hold 2 (or 7 depending on which bible version your accept) of every creature on earth, along with enough food to keep them alive for almost a year, along with a way to contain them and keep them from eating each other, etc. etc… and would recognize that the story is nothing but a fable, a fairy tale…
    But Messy cannot accept that. Because it is in the bible, which is 100% true, we must look for mind numbing rationalizations to try to explain it…. maybe a cubit was really 12 miles long back in those days. Maybe there were only 50 species of animals back then, and all the species we have now evolved from them. Maybe when you dilute sea water with 4 times the volume of fresh water, it doesn’t change the salinity or water chemistry that marine life depends on to live.
    A mind is a terrible thing to waste……..

  714. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:18 pm 714.The messenger said …

    709.alex, hating others is a sin, and I cannot name a single person on the earth that has never felt hate at least once in their lives.

    So yes, everyone(except GOD) has sinned at least once.

  715. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:20 pm 715.The messenger said …

    710.freddies_dead, I never said any of that, except the part about the flood being literal.

  716. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:21 pm 716.The messenger said …

    711.freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.

  717. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:24 pm 717.The messenger said …

    713.freddies_dead, I am not acting condescending. I was simply giving a description of your behavior.

  718. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:29 pm 718.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, there is no contradiction, GOD and Jesus are the same person. GOD took human for, but he is still GOD. And GOD is the only person who is allowed to literally stone a person to death.

    Jesus was not entirely human, he was GOD as well. A 100% human is not allowed to literally stone a person.

  719. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:32 pm 719.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, the scribes and pharessies thought that the stoning verses were literal, but Jesus showed them that none of them were worthy to literally stone a person.

    I did not ignore anything.

  720. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:37 pm 720.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, Jesus did not say tht they had broken their own law, he simply said that he would give his stone to the first man that tells him that he has never sinned. Having sinned in the past, and realizing that they had no authority to stone the woman, they left on by one. Then Jesus walked over to the woman and forgave her sins, but warned her to not sin.

  721. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:46 pm 721.Sweetness said …

    “and would recognize that the story is nothing but a fable, a fairy tale…”

    sometimes fairy tales are true…..right Dippity Dew? An ark in a flood……..is it less likely than claiming mankind’s ancestors crawled out of the ocean? And to make it more realistic that the those ancestors were born from lifeless matter? and….. It was all just by chance? Lol!!!!!!

    You who do not believe in fairy tales cast the first stone!!! lol!!!!!!!

  722. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:28 pm 722.alex said …

    “I cannot name a single person on the earth that has never felt hate at least once in their lives.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. aside from the salt water that cannot be dilluted according to your dumbass, i know at least a couple of autistics that don’t hate. they don’t sin, so you’re wrong again. what? do i smell the bullshit original stink?

    how many times can a motherfucker be wrong?

  723. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:47 pm 723.alex said …

    “freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.”

    name one verse that says thou shalt not rape? does this make us even? nope. the options after committing rape has been pointed many times to your ass. do you understand that most of your homies don’t agree with you?

    it says you may marry the victim. no matter how you sugarcoat this nonsense, it’s bull. hear ye, all you unwed men! find yoself a nice looking virgin and violate her and she has no choice but to marry you. you likes this because i suspect you want to do it, but don’t have the balls to do it.

    the bible is chock of thou shalt not’s, but nowhere is rape prohibited. but disgustingly, the bileble states explicitly, the marriage or shekel payoff are the options afterwards.

    you’re right, the bible doesn’t say it, but you agree that marrying the victim is cool. that’s why you persist in anonymously clogging up this blog with your $hit. said before, brave up motherfucker, and go public with your crap.

  724. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:50 pm 724.alex said …

    “sometimes fairy tales are true…..right Dippity Dew? An ark in a flood……..is it less likely than claiming mankind’s ancestors crawled out of the ocean? And to make it more realistic that the those ancestors were born from lifeless matter?”

    ok, man’s ancestors didn’t crawl out of the ocean. and? what do you offer? shit! that’s what.

    what do i have to offer? refute, bitch. nonsense NOT tolerated.

  725. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:06 pm 725.alex said …

    “I did not ignore anything.”

    you ignore the fact that salt water can be dilluted.

    you ignore the fact that you’re a lazy beeatch, by not looking up “donkies” and “cubit”.

    you ignore that fact that atheists don’t believe in all gods. remember this?
    “Atheists oppose the one true GOD, and therefore oppose all of his morals.”

    you ignore the fact that there is no moral guide and no one has produced it. remember this?
    “Humans can not possibly produce a moral guide as pure as the bible.”

    you ignore the fact that whoever asserts must produce the proof. i.e. prove that the universe wasn’t created by odin? remember this?
    “where is the proof that GOD did not create the earth?”

    you ignore the fact that elements can be determined just by looking at them. i’m not gonna tell your lazy, dumbass how. look it up, beeyatch!

    and the list is endless, see messenger’s dumbass collection at: http://goo.gl/v6lO0I

  726. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:18 pm 726.alex said …

    here’s messenger’s m.o.

    cherry pick the bible to support his bullshit. dismiss bullshit bible passages pointed out, as “not literal”.
    proclaim that atheists are all these bad people.
    if you cannot disprove god, god must exist.
    numerous witnesses.

    how is this different from sea turtle adherants?

    sea turtle gospel says this and that.
    sea turtle gospel contradictions are euphemisms.
    hitler, mao-tse tung, crusaders, new world conquerors, ancient romans, huns, et all are all examples of atheist non sea turtle believers.
    there are many sea turtle witnesses.

    did i leave anything out?

    and what’s my m.o.? curse your motherfucking, bullshit serving, ass.

  727. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:50 pm 727.alex said …

    what’s hor’s m.o.?

    point out some mundane, ridiculous shit that some people believe in, like it’s gonna validate his god nonsense. examples:

    1. something out of nothing. he keeps bringing up this shit like it’s some kind of atheist universal belief.
    2. dna programmer is required and god is it.

    make up some impossible, mutually exclusive situations and demand that atheists prove that it cannot exist. ? an all knowing god gives you free will. you don’t have to be an atheist to know this shit is impossible. spherical cube anyone?

    post with multiple names and when caught, nervously make up some bullshit, like that he is everyone. after getting busted many times, he’s given up posting as somebody else and instead fluffs his moronic buddy, messenger. but he’s careful not to agree with messenger’s obvious stupidity.

    that’s his entire m.o. readers, ye be the judge. check out his entire collection at: http://goo.gl/KCGo6g

    you may not agree with my cursing the motherfucker, but maybe, you’ll see why.

  728. on 13 Mar 2014 at 11:28 pm 728.Sweetness said …

    “nonsense NOT tolerated.”

    Oh please don’t leave. You are great for the theist cause. Besides you need to stay busy so as not to do something foolish. :)

  729. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:46 am 729.alex said …

    “Oh please don’t leave.”

    nice comeback, motherfucker. i forgot to add to your m.o.

    sarcastic, lols, name calling. makes you feel better but doesn’t do shit for your god, does it?

    am i guilty of same? course, but not in the name of some bullshit.

  730. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:49 am 730.alex said …

    “stay busy so as not to do something foolish.”

    what? like, me rape a virgin and propose marriage, something like that? i would offer shekels but i don’t have any. the motherfucker, messenger cornered the market. not sure what he’s gonna use them for, you got any ideas?

  731. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:51 am 731.Anonymous said …

    726.alex, I do not cherry pick verses. I recognize all of the verses.

    You cherry pick stoning verses and forget the surrounding text.

  732. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:51 am 732.The messenger said …

    726.alex, I do not cherry pick verses. I recognize all of the verses.

    You cherry pick stoning verses and forget the surrounding text.

  733. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:54 am 733.The messenger said …

    729.alex, none of your comments contain any substance.

    Like a monkey throw poop, you throw cuss words and other crap that you barf up.

  734. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:00 am 734.alex said …

    “you throw cuss words and other crap that you barf up.”

    so, what did your congregation say when you distributed this shit of yours? http://goo.gl/v6lO0I

    embarassing ain’t it. but it’s archived, you dumb motherfucker. come one, bitch, name one xtian that agrees with you. 4? no? not even one other person? you’re a church of one? come on hor, speak. fluff your homie.

  735. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:01 am 735.alex said …

    “I recognize all of the verses.”

    cubit, bitch. look it up.

    salt water dilutes, motherfucker. recognize!

  736. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:04 am 736.alex said …

    “alex, none of your comments contain any substance.”

    of course it doesn’t. what it does, though, is refute your total bullshit.

    marriage after rape is TOTAL bs. not a single sane person believes that and you’re the proof.

  737. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:32 pm 737.freddies_dead said …

    717.The messenger said …

    710.freddies_dead, I never said any of that, except the part about the flood being literal.

    I never claimed that you did but, since you bought it up, do you have any physical evidence for a global flood? I know it mentions one in your big book of myths but then most religions/cultures have their own flood story. With the total lack of physical evidence for a global flood why should I accept the Bible’s account instead of say the Sumerian one?

  738. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:32 pm 738.freddies_dead said …

    718.The messenger said …

    711.freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.

    Already asked and answered – take your pick out of any of the verses which condone rape by granting the Israelites the rights to the virgin women from the tribes they massacred.

  739. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:33 pm 739.freddies_dead said …

    719.The messenger said …

    713.freddies_dead, I am not acting condescending. I was simply giving a description of your behavior.

    Your unwarranted assumption that your behaviour is somehow better simply because you don’t use certain words is condescending.

  740. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:35 pm 740.freddies_dead said …

    721.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, the scribes and pharessies thought that the stoning verses were literal, but Jesus showed them that none of them were worthy to literally stone a person.

    Of course they thought the verses were literal. They believed them to be the Law of God given to them through Moses. Are you saying that what Moses told them wasn’t the Law? Why would Moses lie to them? Wouldn’t God have been a bit pissed at Moses for lying after He’d just told Moses that people shouldn’t lie? Your claims make no sense whan we look at context.

    I did not ignore anything.

    Except all of the context that surrounds those verses of course. But then that’s not a surprise as the context shows your claim to be baseless.

  741. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:36 pm 741.freddies_dead said …

    722.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, Jesus did not say tht they had broken their own law, he simply said that he would give his stone to the first man that tells him that he has never sinned. Having sinned in the past, and realizing that they had no authority to stone the woman, they left on by one. Then Jesus walked over to the woman and forgave her sins, but warned her to not sin.

    Yup, that’s exactly how you ignored the context the first time. Is it supposed to somehow be true if you simply repeat your claim whilst still ignoring the context? What about verse 6 that starts “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.”? You gloss over that part without explaining, why? Why would the Pharisees only bring the woman and not the man too? Why would they be trying to tempt Jesus? What does it mean “that they might have to accuse him”? Why did Jesus then ignore the Law He (as God) supposedly handed down to Moses and change things when He had stated that He hadn’t come to change the Law? Your version makes no sense when we look at context.

  742. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:31 pm 742.Sweetness said …

    “Why did Jesus then ignore the Law He (as God) supposedly handed down to Moses and change things when He had stated that He hadn’t come to change the Law”

    Freddie mouse is getting closer to seeing the significance of the NT………..if only he was willing to learn rather than just looking to be smugly combative……sigh….

    :)

  743. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:34 pm 743.Sweetness said …

    Suppose the Bible is not what it claims to be.

    Bow have you disproven God?

    Atheist like to go to the Bible since they cannot logically defend the notion of God.

    Same old cowardly tactics…..lol!!!!!

  744. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:41 pm 744.DPK said …

    Yes, Freddie… don’t you understand? … the writers of the new testament wrote it to fix all the crazy ass shit in the old testament that no one would any longer believe came from a supreme being!

    So, they said that god just changed his all knowing mind about all that slaughtering, rape, stoning, ripping, burning, and blood letting.

    It’s the ultimate do-over. Kind of an insane idea for an omniscient god with omnipotent powers. Seems he would have known he was wrong about all of that stuff before he would need to change his story and switch from jealous warrior god of Israel to gentle Jesus meek and mild.

  745. on 14 Mar 2014 at 7:05 pm 745.DPK said …

    746.Sweetness said …
    “Suppose the Bible is not what it claims to be…”

    You mean suppose it is not the perfect word of a supreme being who is both omniscient and omnipotent? That’s fairly obvious.

    “Bow have you disproven God?”

    It would, simply put, show that the bible is not the perfect word of a supreme being. So, it will have disproven the biblical god as described in the bible. Duh. Are you talking about some OTHER god? Sea turtle perhaps, or Vishnu? If so,you are correct, the bible not being what it claims to be would indeed not disprove any of THOSE gods.

    “Atheist like to go to the Bible since they cannot logically defend the notion of God.”

    Well, as you note, atheists certainly cannot logically defend the notion of god… neither can you, apparently.

    But, like the other example you ran away from showing the impossibility of any creature being both all knowing and all powerful at the same time, we can indeed “logically” demonstrate the impossibility of your specific god. LOL!

    If you want to make claims about what atheists can and cannot logically demonstrate, you need to clearly define who your god is and what is properties are. Is he both all powerful and all knowing? Is he omni-benevolent?

  746. on 15 Mar 2014 at 12:09 am 746.The messenger said …

    738.alex, the only thing that your comments refute is your intelligence.

  747. on 15 Mar 2014 at 12:21 am 747.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us. if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

  748. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:07 am 748.alex said …

    “alex, the only thing that your comments refute is your intelligence”

    then man up, beeyatch. publicly state your righteous position and let’s see how your xtian homies react.

    but you know they’ll laugh at your motherfucking ass. forget this blog. your shit is old, caveman shit, that most xtians won’t even consider.

    but you’ll stay in your anonymous, caveman, world. you’ll keep fucking up this blog, but motherfuckers like me will tireless call out your shit.

    post on, beeyatch.

  749. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:16 am 749.alex said …

    “because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.”

    wrong again, beeyatch. many religions are older that your bullshit, but as you’ve demonstrated before, you haven’t mastered the elementary skill of looking up shit.

    “You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us.”

    wrong on all counts. if you’ve been paying attention, american, he’s not. the shit about the founding fathers, you made it up and once again, i’m calling you out on it. strike three, god did not give us these rights.

    see how your bullshit is called out, no? then prove it. you stated it as fact and i say bull, so prove me wrong. your days of proclaiming bullshit is over. all you fuckers have left is anonymously posting your crap. what happened to the john 3:13 signs?

    plez, don’t even try the xtian prosecution shit. i would call out your shit even if you were buddist.

    rage against the bullshit, motherfucker.

  750. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:32 am 750.Sweetness said …

    “So, it will have disproven the biblical god as described in the bible. Duh.”

    ROTFL;!!!! It proves nothing of the kind! It only proves you don’t like the God of the Bible. Or that you just don’t understand a deity with your finite pea brain. Lol!!!!

    But again, so what? How have you disproven a Creator created and sustains the universe? Hmmmm? I mean you can’t even offer a viable alternative! :)

    lol!!!!

  751. on 15 Mar 2014 at 3:11 am 751.DPK said …

    ROTFL;!!!! It proves nothing of the kind! It only proves you don’t like the God of the Bible.

    Have you been hitting the sauce again, Stan? You said, “suppose the bible is not what it claims to be.” Well, it claims to be the word of god. If it is not what it claims to be then it is Not the word of the god described in it! Your condition… Idiot! Lol

    “Or that you just don’t understand a deity with your finite pea brain. Lol!!!!”

    Again, we were talking about the biblical god, now you are changing the subject to “a deity”. Man up and describe your deity. If it is not the biblical god, then what god are you claiming, and how do you know? Explain.

    “But again, so what? How have you disproven a Creator created and sustains the universe? Hmmmm? I mean you can’t even offer a viable alternative! :)”

    In a absence of any evidence that a “creator” in fact created and sustained the universe, why do I need to present an alternative? You have not disproven that the magic sea turtle created and sustains the universe. You have not disproven that mighty Zeus created and sustains the universe. Lol. Is that your idea of what the scientific method is?

    You are so funny laddie… Tell you what, we have already dismissed the biblical god, tell us about your deity and let’s explore the possibility that he perhaps did create and sustains the universe. Is he omnipotent, omniscient, and Omni- benevolent? Let’s find out if this deity is an actual possibility, or is simply another invented god of the gaps, which you already told us was a silly argument.
    Whatca got, Hor? Nothing again? Lol!

  752. on 15 Mar 2014 at 4:01 am 752.alex said …

    “Whatca got, Hor? Nothing again?”

    take a look at hor’s (a.k.a. sweetness) entire contribution to this article: http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    you’ll notice that he doesn’t present ONE single argument for his xtian god. atheists present material to refute his crap and his comebacks are always the same. nervous lols, laughs, and name calling. always challenging and demanding answers, but not ONE single argument for his xtian god. basically, his stance is that any atheist explanation is dubious therefore god is the only other choice.

    check it out. it’s legit. original wwgha links included: http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    time to change your handle, hor.

  753. on 15 Mar 2014 at 3:35 pm 753.DPK said …

    “his stance is that any atheist explanation is dubious therefore god is the only other choice.”

    Exactly, like god wins by default. Then, in order to provide an explanation of how this supposed god works and what he wants from us, they describe a god with properties that are absolutely impossible because they are self exclusive… Like a god who can do anything, but has perfect knowledge of everything that has, or will occur. An all powerful god who is all good, yet created evil and allows it to exist and cause untold suffering… indeed planned it that way. A god who knows in advance every thing that will ever happen for all eternity, but never the less allows us free will to do whatever we choose, and then will punish us for eternity if we choose wrong.
    Then they add to that a list of properties that seem too ridiculous to even consider, unless you happen to be a bronze age goat herder cowering at the sight of a comet or solar eclipse.
    A god so intelligent and powerful so as to create the cosmos and everything in it just from the force of his will, but requires worship and adoration from some creatures living on a tiny, obscure speck in the vicinity of some obscure star among trillions upon trillions of stars. Creatures who have only even existed for a few seconds, cosmologicaly speaking. A god who is all powerful and all loving, yet demands a blood sacrifice in the most brutal, primitive fashion, in order to atone for a “sin” committed exactly as he had planned it to be committed. A god who describes himself as “jealous” and “vengeful” to whom the worst transgression you can commit is worshiping some other god. A god who lives in a state of absolute perfection and goodness, yet who’s fellow celestial inhabitants hated so much that they rebelled against him, fought a war to overthrow him, and had to be cast out of this perfect existence into a place of eternal torment.
    Yeah, that all makes sense……..

  754. on 15 Mar 2014 at 5:57 pm 754.alex said …

    and predictably, hor will challenge atheists to prove how his impossible god cannot exist and the loony loop begins anew. monkey ancestors, dna programmer, macro evolution, ocean swimming, ….. lols in between.

    adam, where are you? i can see you, but i ask anyways coz i’m testing you, even though i already know what you gonna answer. what crazo.

    and then, the dipshit messenger will join the fray, bible this, literal this, atheists, this, marriage for rape, donkies, snakes, salinity, oy! oy! oy! name calling, bleh, bleh.

    …and then hor will ask, what do i bring to the table? i bring shit for you theist motherfuckers and isn’t that god’s plan? i just can’t help myself.

    morons.

  755. on 15 Mar 2014 at 8:36 pm 755.Sweetness said …

    “Well, it claims to be the word of god. If it is not what it claims to be then it is Not the word of the god described in it! Your condition”

    ROTFL! So how has this prove the God of the Bible not true? All we did is, for the moment, assume the Bible is not what it claims. The statement being erroneous does not disprove God! WOW!!!!! Lol!!!!! You are a hoot! That’s like saying a faulty biography of Washington proves Washington did not exist!!! Hahahahahahaha

    “why do I need to present an alternative”

    Because you have whined the same thing. No creator? Give use a possible scenario for creation. Scared? Offer something of value so you can shut up Messenger. Imagine how sweet that would be for you!

    lol!!!

  756. on 15 Mar 2014 at 8:55 pm 756.Sweetness said …

    “Again, we were talking about the biblical god, now you are changing the subject to “a deity”.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Wow!!!!

    OK, um,……..YHWH……in the Bible……IS a deity. LOL!!!!

    Dippity Dew, think about going into a good GED program.

    lol!!!!!

  757. on 15 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 757.The messenger said …

    757.alex, I did not make any of those things about America.

  758. on 15 Mar 2014 at 11:41 pm 758.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us. if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

    P.s., alex, let fred speak for himself.

  759. on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:24 am 759.alex said …

    “Offer something of value so you can shut up Messenger.”

    you believe that rapists should be allowed to marry their victims? any other xtians here believe this shit? does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    salt water may be dilluted even though the resident idiot doesn’t think so. does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    balaam’s donkey is in the bible, contrary to what the dipshit, messenger claims. does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    every single one of those comments, refuted, just like your shit. there is nothing an atheist can offer you to change your mind because you’re a dumb motherfucker. even if allah showed up and shoved his magic horse up your ass, you still wouldn’t be convinced. how the fuck are atheists supposed to convince your?

    man up and say your shit and back it up, but you won’t because it’ll be back right up in your face.

  760. on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:37 am 760.alex said …

    “alex, let fred speak for himself.”

    nobody here’s stopping freddie, but i work on the computer all the time and your shit is not getting a free pass.

    you spouting off more shit about “god given” rights according to the founding fathers. cite it, bitch and your motherfucking, lazy, ignorant, ass will be exposed yet again.

    …i’m standing by. google, your stupid, lazy, fuck.

  761. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:25 am 761.The messenger said …

    763.alex, no wonder your crazy, you spend too much time in front of a screen.

    Get a life.

  762. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:32 am 762.The messenger said …

    763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).

    It is fact that on the Great Seal of the United States (the one that our founding fathers made) it says “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to GOD”.

    I did not lie. Our government is founded by a belief in GOD.

  763. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:56 am 763.alex said …

    “alex, no wonder your crazy, you spend too much time in front of a screen.”

    you dumb shit. i’m a computer programmer and i work at home. i also run two non profit sites that raise money for the poor. how the fuck do you think, i’m able to gather and post your entire dumbass wwgha post collection?

    “it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).”

    wrong. if it is, they would have written that in the constitution, wouldn’t they? instead, they added the exclusionary:

    “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    read motherfucker. ever heard these?
    “Separation of church and state”. used by jefferson and others. think i’m making this shit up? scotus used this phrase many times. first amendement, motherfucker:

    …provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    i told you to google, you dumb, lazy, motherfucker.

    where you at, hor? spank your bitch, messenger.

    of course, it’s not surprising. the same dumbass, messenger, claims that salt water can’t be dilluted.

    scotus? look it up, lazy fucker.

  764. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:02 am 764.Sweetness said …

    “Separation of church and state”. used by jefferson and others”

    ROTFL!!!!!! Jefferson was not even in the US when the constitution was written. Remember? If it is not in the constitution it doesn’t matter! Lol!!!!!!

    He did as a younger man write the DI. After some moderation from the Congress, they agreed our rights come……from…….our…….Creator!

    ouch!

    Alex the silver tongue is busted!!!!!

    I’m standing by google because your tripe is not going unchallenged!!

    lol!!!!!!!!!

    Still luv ya Alex. You are a wonderful example for all the kids!

  765. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:23 am 765.alex said …

    “Jefferson was not even in the US when the constitution was written.”

    where did i say he was in the u.s.? did your google result show the jefferson did say this? did your google result show that others said it? did your google results show the scotus referencing the term? as usual, you got nothing, so you make up shit.

    that’s why allah would never convince you even if he shoved the magical horse up your ass.

    “Remember? If it is not in the constitution it doesn’t matter!” who said that?

    see your m.o. is surfacing again. i call out your lying xtian homie and you make up shit in your feeble, sorry attempt, to shore up your all knowing god. of course, all this lying was planned by your god and you couldn’t help yourself.

    go fuck yourself. ask your sorry god why he insist on making you look like a dumbass fool.

  766. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:32 am 766.alex said …

    here’s a reminder.

    let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson, the constitution, about the age of the earth, about everything i know.

    what the fuck does that do for your god? hmmm, let’s see? nada, nill, nothing. heard that before, you dumb motherfucker? right back on square one ain’t it. no motherfucking distraction will ever change your bullshit god, unless, of course, you got something?

    let’s hear it. what? corvette, dna programmer, ocean swimming, macarel evolution? obama? what, motherfucker?

    hey, i’m allah. what can i do to convince your ass? how about if i shove mohammad’s magical horse up your ass, would that do it?

    you see? there’s not a thing atheists can say in here, to change your dumbass. nothing. say it beeyatch.

  767. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:55 am 767.alex said …

    and with all of hor’s postings, what does he bring to the table in support of his god? check it out:
    http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    nothing, nada. diversion after diversion. the motherfucker posts and posts and atheist refutes his ass every time. as i said before, there is nothing atheists can say or do to convince this dipshit.

    if christ were to show up today, the motherfucker wouldn’t be convinced. let’s see you program the dna, j. assemble the corvette. swim the ocean. freeze the waterfall. camel thru a needle. then we’ll talk.

  768. on 16 Mar 2014 at 5:57 pm 768.Sweetness said …

    “where did i say he was in the u.s.?”

    Oh you NOMALLY bounce from the Constitution to a letter written to the Dansbury Baptist? lol!!!!!

    “did your google result show the jefferson did say this”

    No I read……multiple biographies on most of the POTUS……

    “let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson”

    You are….don’t need to say it :). As a reminder, YOU brought up the Constitution and Jefferson. Don’t bring up subjects above your pay grade…lol!!!!!

    You got taken….go get your GED.

    Cue: Profanity, subject change and rants of anger.

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  769. on 16 Mar 2014 at 6:19 pm 769.alex said …

    and with all of hor’s postings, what does he bring to the table in support of his god? check it out:
    http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    nothing, nada. diversion after diversion. the motherfucker posts and posts and atheist refutes his ass every time. as i said before, there is nothing atheists can say or do to convince this dipshit.

    if christ were to show up today, the motherfucker wouldn’t be convinced. let’s see you program the dna, j. assemble the corvette. swim the ocean. freeze the waterfall. camel thru a needle. then we’ll talk.

  770. on 16 Mar 2014 at 6:30 pm 770.alex said …

    ““let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson”

    You are….don’t need to say it :). As a reminder, YOU brought up the Constitution and Jefferson. Don’t bring up subjects above your pay grade…lol!!!!!”

    ok, there ya go folks. i’m wrong and i don’t need to say it, but i will, just to shut the motherfucker up. just to make sure everyone knows i’m wrong. AND hor’s god is still what? bullshit still.

    btw, your homie is the one that brought up the constitution via his founding father’s bullshit, just so you know, but i’m also wrong about that one. and your god is still what? bullshit still.

  771. on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:23 pm 771.DPK said …

    763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).

    The founding fathers were also supporters of slavery who did not think blacks were equal to other humans, and that those rights granted to “us” by a creator were reserved exclusively for white, male, land owners. Lol.
    So what does that prove about the existence of your god? Nothing? And what does it demonstrate about those founding fathers religous beliefs that they went out of their way to make sure the government was never to be influenced by a religion?

    And while we’re on the subject of silly things, is Hor ever going to explain the dichomety of a god who is all knowing, yet all powerful, and also all good?
    Yeah, did,t think so. Instead we get pearls like, “assume the bible is wrong, that still doesn’t disprove god!” Lol!
    Ok, assume Greek Mythology is wrong, that still doesn’t disprove Zeus.
    What a douche.

  772. on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:50 pm 772.alex said …

    “763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).”

    fair enough, i’m wrong about that one.

    i’m also wrong about the earth being older that 10,000 years old.

    i’m also wrong about hor posting using multiple names fluffing hisself.

    … and hor’s god is still bullshit.

  773. on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:17 pm 773.alex said …

    hor’s and messenger’s books are so crappy and voluminous, which made it slow to render, i had to rewrite the shit. so here it is, speedier and sorted with the last posts first:
    http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    ran into hor’s special gem where he posted as martin and congratulated hisself. here it is again:

    Alex since you have neither you have a lot of free time huh?
    lol!!

    Martin,

    Good one!

    hor’s book is hooked up to this blog, so when hor adds more crap, it’s added to the top of the shit.

  774. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:00 am 774.The messenger said …

    774.DPK, you are a liar.

    Thomas Jefferson called slavery a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot”. He hated slavery.

    Although George Washington owned slaves, he treated them with more respect and kindness than most of his neighbors. And he personally opposed slavery, he did not want to cause conflicts within the young country.

    John Adams was a famous abolitionist. He has the title of being the “archest enemy of southern slavery that every existed”.

    You are not educated in U.S.A history, brother DPK.

  775. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:11 am 775.Angus and Alexis said …

    Citation needed.

  776. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:36 am 776.alex said …

    “Although George Washington owned slaves, he treated them with more respect and kindness than most of his neighbors. And he personally opposed slavery, he did not want to cause conflicts within the young country.”

    and how the fuck does this prove your god? 2+ billion xtian motherfuckers on the planet and they all believe in bullshit. other than the bible and other bullshit writings and of course, other bullshit xtian witnessess, whatcha got?

    here’s your pile of shit, again. http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your latest crap must be light. floats to the top. eat more fiber, motherfucker.

  777. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:47 am 777.The messenger said …

    778.Angus and Alexis,

    David C. Frederick, “John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right of Petition,” Law and History Review, Spring 1991, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp 113-155

    Leonard L. Richards, The slave power: the free North and southern domination, 1780-1860 (2000) p. 44

    Edward G. Lengel (2012). A Companion to George Washington. John Wiley. p. 90.
    13.Jump up ^ Fritz Hirschfeld (1997). George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press. p. 74

  778. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:48 am 778.The messenger said …

    779.alex, stay on subject.

    We are discussing the founding fathers and slavery.

  779. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:59 am 779.alex said …

    “We are discussing the founding fathers and slavery”

    and? you say, he say, and? your god is still bullshit. you can recite every word uttered by the ff and? your god is still bullshit, moron.

    let’s discuss how your dumbass, like the idea of rapists marrying their victims? this is a fact, motherfucker. hor as well as many xtians distance themselves from this shit, but not you.

    discuss away, motherfucker.

  780. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:05 am 780.alex said …

    781.The messenger said …

    you’re right, motherfucker, 100%

    except for the salt water part. except for the donkey in the bible part. except for the cubit part. except for the rape marriage part…..

    and most of the shit in here. http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your sideshow is pointless. again, what would allah have to do to show you he’s god? what about jesus? what would jesus have to do to show you he’s god?

    what the fuck do you want from atheists in here? if allah couldn’t convince your ass, how the fuck….

  781. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:25 am 781.Sweetness said …

    “John Adams was a famous abolitionist. He has the title of being the “archest enemy of southern slavery that every existed”.

    Absolutely right Messenger. All the founders were not pro-slavery. Washington was always torn on the subject. But they were not for gay marriage or pro-abortion either so atheists would consider them immoral monsters based on there relative moral code of whatever feels right to them. :)

    Our founders supported:

    Preaching on Sundays in the Congress (sused as a church)
    Bible classes in schools
    Praying before all congressional meetings
    10 Commandments on all courthouses
    Suspension of congress for a Sunday School parade

    So much for the separation of church and state huh? LOL!!!!! The establishment clause was to prevent a state church as the the Anglican church was/is in England. Not to eliminate God from government activities.

  782. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:41 am 782.alex said …

    “So much for the separation of church and state huh? LOL!!!!!”

    you’re right. creationism in schools is right around the corner. xtian participation will soon be required to hold political office. gay marriage bans are soon to be everywhere. state rights will exercise the slavery option.

    and the proof for your god? nada, zilch. business as usual for your ass: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

  783. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:20 am 783.The messenger said …

    Mankind has been a murderous, evil, savage, crazed species that has a history of self destruction and death.

    Humans do not naturally have humility, love for others, kindness, and forgiveness. Our ancestors are hateful idiots. All creatures on the earth are naturally focused on self serves and personal gain. Therefore, kindness, love of others, and generosity is an unnatural thing. I couldn’t have come from earth natives. Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.

  784. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:23 am 784.DPK said …

    Messy, you know Thomas Jefferson OWNED slaves, right? Lol!

    Not that it males a difference as to the reality of your god. Let’s say the founding fathers were all church going Catholics. So what?

  785. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:24 am 785.The messenger said …

    784.Sweetness, well spoken, my friend.

  786. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:24 am 786.alex said …

    “Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.”

    bullshit. all the proof you offer are more bullshit from the bible and bullshit xtian witnesses.

    as evidenced in your shitpile: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    can you dilute salt water? donkies/bears/snakes in the bible? rape marriages? what else you got?

  787. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:27 am 787.The messenger said …

    787.DPK, they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.

    The catholic church was very corrupt back then.

    I my self am a liberal catholic. I believe that all people can be saved, and hell is not forever. But I do stay joined with the church and most of it’s interpretations of the bible.

  788. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:31 am 788.alex said …

    “they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.”

    mormons, lutherans, baptists. does it make any difference what fucked up xtian brand they were? all you got is bullshit. check your shitpile: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your legend grows as your shitpile shows. what the fuck you want from atheists? you’re going to convince us, with what? appeal to authority? hell/heaven? nonxtians are bad?

    you’re too stupid to reason with. tell me, motherfucker. how would you know if jesus showed up? oh, you’d just know? would that be the same shit for allah? you’d just know?

  789. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:40 am 789.alex said …

    “I believe that all people can be saved, and hell is not forever.”

    missed that little tidbit. damn java build messin me up.

    what a fucking riot. any other xtian motherfucker in here believe this shit? speak up, hor.

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, self proclaimed, xtian representative. a church of uno, motherfucker. here’s your charter. run for office, messy, run.

    1) rapists can marry their victim.
    2) you’ve personally seen heaven.
    3) you put random amounts of sugar in your coffee because it cannot be diluted.
    4) you alone interprets what’s literal in bible

    many more. but my build is finished. no errors. later, motherfucker.

  790. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:37 pm 790.DPK said …

    790.The messenger said …
    787.DPK, they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.

    haha.. how very liberal and condescending of you.
    So, they founded our nation on the principal that god gave inalienable rights to white males who were property owners, and other humans could be owned and traded as property. And this gives value to claim of an omnipotent, omniscient god how, exactly???

    “The catholic church was very corrupt back then.”
    Back then!?? LOL… newsflash Messy, the catholic church is still very corrupt. ROTFLOL.

  791. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:50 pm 791.freddies_dead said …

    751.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    Hinduism is older so you can take your longevity fallacy and stick it … sideways. It has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition that God exists.

    And Biblical morality isn’t the foundation of morality for the western world – as you can see, in part, by our inability to stone to death homosexuals and adulterers.

    The Golden Rule – which actually is one of the cornerstones of morality – was understood long before Christianity arose. Christians simply adopted it and incorporated it into their religious mythology.

    You are American right?

    Wrong. I’m English.

    Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers.

    Why should I care where the American founding fathers claimed rights came from? This is simply an argument from authority considering the existence of your God is what’s at odds here. Simply claiming your rights come from God says nothing about the existence of said God.

    The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us.

    Ignoring the fact that you’ve yet to show that your God exists let alone granted anyone rights, your very own U.S. Bill of Rights shows that your rights can be changed.

    if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    And they do just that, which only shows that they’re not actually “God given”.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

    That’s nice for you but it does nothing to support any of the claims you’ve made in this post.

  792. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:53 pm 792.freddies_dead said …

    787.The messenger said …

    Mankind has been a murderous, evil, savage, crazed species that has a history of self destruction and death.

    And according to your mythology man is made in the image of your God. Good job he’s only imaginary.

    You should read Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature” to see that violence is declining over time.

    Humans do not naturally have humility, love for others, kindness, and forgiveness.

    Baseless assertion which flies in the face of pretty much every scientific study into the phenomena.

    Our ancestors are hateful idiots.

    Fortunately we’re getting better. If we could remove religion from the equation that would be a massive step forward.

    All creatures on the earth are naturally focused on self serves and personal gain.

    You should look up altruism.

    Therefore, kindness, love of others, and generosity is an unnatural thing.

    Except for all the instances that appear in nature you mean?

    I couldn’t have come from earth natives.

    Finally, something that we agree on.

    Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.

    You’ve singularly failed to demonstrate the existence of your God so fortunately your credulity isn’t my problem.

  793. on 17 Mar 2014 at 7:32 pm 793.Sweetness said …

    “Why should I care where the American founding fathers claimed rights came from?”

    That true Messenger. Our founders were traitors to the Brits……..and Americans kicked the crap out of the Brits….twice Lol!!!!!

    Our founders recognized the divine nature of human rights. Men have a tendency to take those rights from others. Like the Brits attempted to do. Not to mention using a state controlled church to control the people

  794. on 17 Mar 2014 at 9:37 pm 794.alex said …

    “That true Messenger. Our founders were traitors to the Brits..”

    once again, all this hor motherfucker brings to the table is a sideshow. fluffing messenger because his ass has been busted many times. not a single time, does the bitch even attempt to prove his god.

    lols, popcorn, brits, corvette, dna programmer is all the motherfucker thinks about. look, says hor, it’s a frozen macro, ocean, waterfall! don’t believe me? check out his pile of shit at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    it’s all lumped together with the sewage from martin, xenon, bif, science guy, sweetness and the rest of the morons.

    hey martin! i’m martin. good one martin.

    remember this, you lyin bitch?

    “Secondly I am not the hor. They insist I am about 8 different posters, so I play along.”

    your pile of shit at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS is dyanamic. time to change your name from “sweetness”.

  795. on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:13 pm 795.DPK said …

    “Our founders recognized the divine nature of human rights.”

    Lol. Yes as long as your skin was white and you had a penis and some money.
    If you had none of these your Dininve rights from god didn’t exist. Lol!

  796. on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:53 pm 796.The messenger said …

    791.alex, I have provided proof in the past.

    I am not the “one alone” interpreter of the bible.

  797. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:07 am 797.The messenger said …

    793.DPK, They founded a country of a belief in GOD, and that GOD gave us rights. These rights were meant for all Americans, white or black.

    Many of the founding fathers opposed slavery, and wanted equal rights for all people.

    The only reason that they did not make slavery illegal, and let white and black men vote together was because they feared that it would start conflict within the newly made nation.

    They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male to handle those matters. It was not sexist, they just thought it was the role of the male to do such things.

  798. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:12 am 798.The messenger said …

    798.DPK, women had much influence on the founding father’s decisions. Abigail adams(john adams wife) guided he husband and helped him come to many political conclusions.

  799. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:25 am 799.The messenger said …

    794.freddies_dead, if the golden rule was around long before Judaism and Christianity started, then why were early human civilizations so hateful and self destructive towards each other?

    A proto form of Judaism was practiced by the first humans, and they learned the golden rule was taught to them by GOD.

  800. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:25 am 800.alex said …

    “I am not the “one alone” interpreter of the bible.”

    “I my self am a liberal catholic.”

    what the hell is a liberal catholic? just like your absolute morals, it doesn’t exist. just like your true xtian test, it doesn’t exist, but it doesn’t stop you, does it?

    all the shit you spew doesn’t line up with ALL the catholic mantras, which which makes you a self, “one alone” interpreter of the bible.

    does the catholic church/pope share your temporary hell interpretation? does the catholic church/pope share your stance on rapist marrying their victims?

    no? what the fuck does that make you? a church of one, you dumb motherfucker. other than tormenting atheists, what the fuck do you want here? there’s nothing atheists can do or say to change you.

    even if jesus showed up today, how the fuck would you know? you got a checklist, motherfucker? would you use the same checklist for allah? odin?

    here’s your latest shitpile, latest crap on top:
    http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  801. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:33 am 801.alex said …

    “if the golden rule was around long before Judaism and Christianity started, then why were early human civilizations so hateful and self destructive towards each other?”

    that’s because you’re a dumb motherfucker. you’ve yet to produce your absolute morals and now you’re using this nonentity, morals bullshit to support your assertion that humans/civilizations were less hateful and destructive after xtianity started.

    why don’t you ask major hor, motherfucker, since this right up his bullshit paygrade. he’ll know it, right along his dna programmer knowledge.

    remember your shitpile: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO
    and your brother hor: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  802. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:40 am 802.alex said …

    “women had much influence on the founding father’s decisions.”

    but that doesn’t stop you from dogging them out, does it? as long as they take their raping, they’re ok by you. you could easily dismiss that rape marriage shit, but you refuse, because you’re a dumb motherfucker. it’s a fantasy of yours, isn’t it? bible shit, you easily dismiss as not literal, but you just cannot let the rape/marriage shit go. go fuck yourself and then you can marry yourself, but you must scream, otherwise god won’t forgive you. bitch.

    remember your shitpile: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  803. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 803.DPK said …

    Curious you have now several times mentioned John Quincy Adams.

    “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
    (Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797)

    “Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
    John Quincy Adams

    “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
    ? John Adams

    “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?
    {Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821}”
    ? John Adams, Adams-Jefferson Letters

    “But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? How has it happened that all the fine arts, architecture, painting, sculpture, statuary, music, poetry, and oratory, have been prostituted, from the creation of the world, to the sordid and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?

    “Government has no right to hurt a hair on the head of an Atheist for his Opinions. Let him have a care of his Practices.

    “Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws.”
    ? John Adams, Adams-Jefferson Letters

    Hahahaha…. That John Adams?

  804. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 804.alex said …

    ” They founded a country of a belief in GOD, and that GOD gave us rights. These rights were meant for all Americans, white or black.”

    i don’t give a fuck if they said that verbatim. i know when the country was formed, blacks were excluded. and what did you say, they meant?

    dumb motherfucker. your shitpile again: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  805. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:33 am 805.The messenger said …

    806.DPK, Adam meant that it was snot founded by the Christian religion of Europe. He was trying to explain that they held no ties to an organized church, but still retained many Jewish/Christian teachings.

    “The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.” – Andrew Jackson.

  806. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:36 am 806.The messenger said …

    806.DPK, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”–George Washington.

  807. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:54 am 807.The messenger said …

    the bloodiest religion on earth is Islam. The pagan roman and Greek religion can be considered second bloodiest.

  808. on 18 Mar 2014 at 2:10 am 808.Anonymous said …

    “The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests.” – Andrew Jackson.

    the bible is bullshit – alex

    “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”–George Washington.

    it is bullshit to govern with the bible and messenger is proof. the motherfucker is the self professed determinator which bible passages as bullshit. in his words:

    “I believe that all people can be saved, and hell is not forever. But I do stay joined with the church and most of it’s interpretations of the bible.”

    in other words, he picks which ones he doesn’t agree with.

    “the bloodiest religion on earth is Islam. The pagan roman and Greek religion can be considered second bloodiest.”

    wrong. the bloodiest RELIGIONS in the world are the ones that don’t believe in the sea turtle. add them up bitch.

    now, a word from the shitpile: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    recent crap on top. ctrl-f zooms to the turd.

  809. on 18 Mar 2014 at 2:14 am 809.alex said …

    808.Anonymous said …

    heh, heh. martin shit just rubbed off on me.

    martin: good one martin. congrats! oopsie.

    here’s his self congratulatory post. i’m not kidding. http://goo.gl/P6JUS3

  810. on 18 Mar 2014 at 3:08 am 810.DPK said …

    This is how the religious mind works.
    John Adams says,
    “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
    “The government of the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.”

    And messy says, “Adam meant that it was snot founded by the Christian religion of Europe.”

    So now in addition to eternity not being eternal, “in ANY sense” means just not tied to European religions.

    Also: “They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male to handle those matters. It was not sexist, they just thought it was the role of the male to do such things.”
    Um, that’s pretty much the definition of sexist… But that indeed has biblical roots, since the bible specifically forbids any woman from having authority over men.

  811. on 18 Mar 2014 at 9:47 am 811.Angus and Alexis said …

    Mess said
    “They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male to handle those matters. It was not sexist, they just thought it was the role of the male to do such things.”

    You idiot, learn what sexism is.

  812. on 18 Mar 2014 at 11:37 am 812.Sweetness said …

    “The government of the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion”

    True, it was founded on Biblical principles.

    Church held in the congress on Sundays
    Bible classes in schools
    Text books constantly referencing the Bible
    10Cs on every courthouse
    Prayer before sessions of Congress

    Atheist had to be miserable…lol!!!!!!

    The list goes on…….

    “They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male”

    And you had to be a land owner. So it was not just all males.

  813. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:50 pm 813.alex said …

    found an old gem and it looks very similar to messenger talking to god. goes something like this:

    “I do have a suggestion. Stop listening to opinions and listen to God.”

    guess who? http://goo.gl/ceAg64

    in other words, don’t use your brain. listen to the voice in your head.

    dumbass.

  814. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:50 pm 814.freddies_dead said …

    803.The messenger said …

    794.freddies_dead, if the golden rule was around long before Judaism and Christianity started, then why were early human civilizations so hateful and self destructive towards each other?

    Because arseholes exist. Then you get one arsehole saying that his deity told him he could do whatever the fuck he wanted to do to the tribe next door and BOOM! divine justification for genocide, war, conflict. You Christians adopted that too.

    See there’s nothing to force people to follow the Golden Rule. Oh, religion pretends to enforce it by getting it’s followers to imagine they will be harshly punished for their transgressions when they die. Of course religion also gives you an automatic ‘out’ due to its inherent relativistic morality i.e. you can’t do X (where X is things like killing, stealing, lying etc…) except when the deity does/commands it.

    Hence the deity constantly telling it’s priests that they have to get their tribes to go out and be arseholes to other tribes because those tribes don’t worship the ‘right’ deity.

    A proto form of Judaism was practiced by the first humans, and they learned the golden rule was taught to them by GOD.

    No, that is just your twisted version of mythology.

    According to the Bible the only rule God gave to Adam and Eve was “don’t eat the fruit!”. It obviously wasn’t the best advice and He ended up having to murder everyone and everything on the planet except for a few lucky animals and Moses + 7.

    The next time He tried handing out some rules He gave 10(ish) of them to Moses, none of which were actually the ‘Golden Rule’. I guess He only learned of that one when He started on the New Testament eh?.

    Needless to say, the ‘rules’ (even the Golden one we find in the NT) turn out to be more like guidelines which Christians can choose to follow … or not, courtesy of the ambiguity and contradiction found so readily in their book of fairy tales.

  815. on 18 Mar 2014 at 3:40 pm 815.Sweetness said …

    WELL, another day and another freddie-mouse error.

    The so called “Golden Rule” can be found in the OT in Leviticus 19:18. Lol!!!!!!

    Jesus summarizes the entire law with it in the NT.

    Of course we find this truth in other people groups. All people originate from one Creator. Same reason we find flood stories in various people groups. The date something was written down does not indicate the source of the truth

  816. on 18 Mar 2014 at 4:03 pm 816.DPK said …

    “The list goes on…….
    “They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male”
    And you had to be a land owner. So it was not just all males.”

    Correct, and they could not be slaves either…

    Are these the “biblical principals” you are saying the country was founded on? LOL… it would appear you were right! Now show us where these biblical principals endowing only white, male landowners with inalienable rights was handed to us by an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god, because it seems we have lost our way… the blacks and women are running rampant, contrary to god’s will!!

  817. on 18 Mar 2014 at 4:54 pm 817.DPK said …

    “The so called “Golden Rule” can be found in the OT in Leviticus 19:18. Lol!!!!!”

    Ever heard of Confucius?
    “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.”

    LOL… you christians didn’t invent anything! Even your holydays and ressurection legends are stolen from other religions… hahaha.

  818. on 18 Mar 2014 at 10:32 pm 818.alex said …

    “you christians didn’t invent anything”

    didn’t they create the foreskin obsession? not sure if it was original though. but the foreskin shit in the bible is ridiculous. no, hor, motherfucker. i’m not interpreting the gospel. didn’t david, god’s golden boy, kill a bunch of phillistinos for their foreskins?

    that’s right, hor motherfucker. i made up the part of david being the golden boy. is this your god proof? phillistinos i mispelled purposely. is this your god proof?

    come back. your content is getting stale. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  819. on 18 Mar 2014 at 11:24 pm 819.DPK said …

    The foreskin obsession comes directly from sky-daddy himself! you decreed in (Genesis 17, 10-14), “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised”.

    Makes you kind of wonder why he put the foreskin there in the first place… Maybe another design flaw by the perfect creator? You cannot understand the mind of god with your pea brain, just trust that the supreme and omnipotent creator of the cosmos, in all it’s glory and magnificence, wants you to snip off the end of your penis.

  820. on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:08 am 820.alex said …

    “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised”.

    no foreskin, so, women excluded. yay for messenger. for the women are so marginalized, they can be bought off for shekels. or if you’re broke, marry the woman then rape her, order not important. don’t believe me? messenger’s own words: http://goo.gl/MpMxUg

    and the motherfucker won’t back off, but stoning is not to be taken literal. sounds like he hate women. messenger, would you like for this to happen to your daughter? http://goo.gl/MpMxUg

  821. on 19 Mar 2014 at 10:24 am 821.freddies_dead said …

    819.A the lying prick said …

    WELL, another day and another freddie-mouse error.

    Really? Let’s see shall we?

    The so called “Golden Rule” can be found in the OT in Leviticus 19:18. Lol!!!!!!

    Erm, and? I never said it wasn’t there at all. If you’d bothered to read the conversation properly you’ll have noticed that messy made the claim that the golden rule was taught to the “first humans”. Now God never did teach the golden rule to Adam or Eve or anyone else who was around before He finally got all pissed off and wiped out everyone and everything on the planet for conforming to His own incompetence, so messy is simply wrong here.

    I also pointed out that He didn’t put the golden rule in the BIG 10(ish) commandments. Rather He seems to have tucked it away. Surely you’d think the cornerstone of western morality would get a bit more prominence than an afterthought in the priestly code of Leviticus? Especially when such a big deal is made of it in the NT.

    Jesus summarizes the entire law with it in the NT.

    Which was the point I made, well done for noticing.

    All people originate from one Creator.

    And your evidence for the existence of this creator is?

    The date something was written down does not indicate the source of the truth

    Oh, the irony…

  822. on 19 Mar 2014 at 11:15 am 822.Sweetness said …

    “God never did teach the golden rule to Adam or Eve or anyone”

    lol!!!!!, another day another Freddie mouse error. So mousey, so absence of writings is evidence God never taught them this laws? How do you know?

    What is the “Big Sin” commandments? Haven’t run across those :)
    Yes Dippity Dew,heard of Confucius. He is one of God’s creations. Lol!!!!

  823. on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:08 pm 823.alex said …

    “Yes Dippity Dew,heard of Confucius. He is one of God’s creations. Lol!!!!”

    wrong again, as usual. he came from the soup. care to prove otherwise? add it to your shitlist. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  824. on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:26 pm 824.DPK said …

    “Yes Dippity Dew,heard of Confucius. He is one of God’s creations. Lol!!!!”

    Well then, I wonder why Confucius didn’t then also tell us about the penis snipping, assorted stonings and blood sacrifices, and the set of inalienable rights afforded white male landowners? Lol.
    You are so predictable. Whatever you agree with, grab for your imaginary god. Whatever you don’t like, just ignore.
    Still waiting for your logical explanation of how your god can possibly be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent all at the same time. I guess you were lying when you claimed to be able to explain the dichotomy. Lol indeed!

  825. on 19 Mar 2014 at 2:56 pm 825.freddies_dead said …

    826.A the lying prick said …

    lol!!!!!, another day another Freddie mouse error.

    I note your inability to demonstrate an error in my previous post so you try and deflect attention by simply repeating your already refuted claim.

    So mousey, so absence of writings is evidence God never taught them this laws?

    You’d think someone might have mentioned God telling Adam and Eve about the cornerstone of western morality, no?

    So yes, when you claim divine inspiration, the lack of such a mention actually is evidence for God’s failure to teach Adam and Eve the golden rule.

    But hey, you’re welcome to show how you know He did … cue A the lying prick resorting to more diversions.

    How do you know?

    A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A? In fact how do you know anything when your worldview denies the very basis of knowledge?

    What is the “Big Sin” commandments? Haven’t run across those :)

    You really do love to demonstrate your stupidity don’t you? When did my reference to the BIG 10(ish) commandments turn into “Big Sin” commandments?

    Yes Dippity Dew,heard of Confucius. He is one of God’s creations. Lol!!!!

    How do you know this, A? In fact how do you know anything when your worldview denies the very basis of knowledge?

  826. on 19 Mar 2014 at 4:11 pm 826.Sweetness said …

    “Well then, I wonder why Confucius didn’t then also tell us about the penis snipping”

    Don’t think he was Jewish…..lol!!!!!

    “You’d think someone might have mentioned God telling Adam and Eve about the cornerstone of western morality, no?”

    Um, no…..the ancients relied on oral tradition. No problem there. Glad to straighten you out. Lol!!!

    “A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A?”

    Avoid?? Lol!!!! No my friend, answered many times by me and others……um I mean all my other mes….lol!

    And really, you believe a fish fossil is proof of evolution! Lol!!!! You wouldn’t know evidence if it bit you on your sea turtle….lol!!!!!

    And mousey, prick is such a naughty word. You really should control you anger Alex Jr….lol!!!!

  827. on 19 Mar 2014 at 8:08 pm 827.DPK said …

    ““Well then, I wonder why Confucius didn’t then also tell us about the penis snipping”
    Don’t think he was Jewish…..lol!!!!!”

    So your god only wants jewish people to cut off the ends of their penises?

    LOL…. I don’t know what is funnier, your obsessive and compulsive lying, or the fact that you actually believe an infinite supreme being is at the same time omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, and is intently concerned with who is circumcised and who is not!

  828. on 19 Mar 2014 at 8:56 pm 828.Sweetness said …

    “So your god only wants jewish people to cut off the ends of their penises?”

    It would seem to be the Jewish custom, ah yeah. I understand it is a sanitary issue and those who were not Jews did not practice the custom.

    Not an expert on the subject but your obsession with it is funny….lol!!!!!! I am not a Jew so maybe purchase some Jewish literature to fulfill your fetish.

    lol!!!!!!

    “I don’t know what is funnier, your obsessive and compulsive lying”

    Lets see one of my lies. We can laugh together! :)

  829. on 19 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 829.DPK said …

    “A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A?”
    Avoid?? Lol!!!! No my friend, answered many times by me and others……um I mean all my other mes….lol!”

    There you go.. Hahaha…

    Now, didn’t your god supposedly command you to be circumcised?
    “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised”.
    Or is that a different god? Seems it is his obsession, not mine. I just find it amusing that any intelligent person in this day and age would believe in a god obsessed with foreskins! Hahaha……..

    Still waiting for your logical explanation of how your god can possibly be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent all at the same time. I guess you were lying when you claimed to be able to explain the dichotomy. Lol indeed! Add that to your list.

  830. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:27 am 830.alex said …

    “Not an expert on the subject but your obsession with it is funny….lol!!!!!!”

    this is standard shit for you. bring up anything and your standard retort is that atheists are obsessed. hell, bring up your bullshit god, and atheists are obsessed. kinda variant on the xtian prosecution shit, ain’t it?

    remember your gems?

    1) What about his/her obsession with the Ponies?
    2) But a God that supposedly doesn’t exist IS an obsession for you?
    3) DIP is intellectually challenged and thus his Santa obsession.
    4) You realize in order to no longer be a religion you will need to lose your obsession, right?
    5) Lets get back to important matters like discussing Mouse’s arrogance and his obsession with tagging other posters.
    6) Of course they will make the claim, but in reality it is just about their obsession over God.

    Deny em? it’s in the book of hor. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    it makes it easy to find your shit. ctrl-f motherfucker. you want lies, take your pick, bitch. and not a single case for your god. oh a few lols, a few congrats martin, but nada, nuttin.

    lol that, dumbass.

  831. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:47 am 831.alex said …

    disprove god. that’s the dumbmotherfuckers banner. any case you make is dubious, therefore all the multitudes of gods are therefore the truth. the obvious impossibility of this escapes the morons. just like the impossibility of an all knowing god giving you free will. just like the impossibility of a round square. so if you can’t disprove, you must acquit, therefore god exists, thor, that is.

    these quotes are just from hor. not any other theist, but exclusively from the hor motherfuckhor.

    1) The statement being erroneous does not disprove God!
    2) How have you disproven a Creator created and sustains the universe?
    3) Bow have you disproven God?
    4) I would agree No one can disprove God to anyone.
    5) Let me know when you can disprove this deity
    6) Disprove this: God started evolution.
    7) Now, again, where is that evidence you had that disproves God?
    8) so you admit it DOES NOT disprove God although you claimed it did.
    9) Tell me how evolution disproves God?
    10) Miracles in the Bible does not disprove God.
    11) How would that disprove a God exists?
    12) If they stood on what they claim that it is impossible to disprove God they might save face.

    let’s review. if atheists cannot disprove god, then the fairy tale lineup of thor, ra, zeus, odin including the mutually exclusive monotheistic gods yahweh and allah, all MUST exist. why not? anything is possible, though you can’t see it, there’s a round square somewhere, that the dumbass god is working on. he knew ahead of time that it’s impossible, but he must fulfill his plan, so work on the round square he must.

    crock of shit.

  832. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:05 am 832.The messenger said …

    812.alex, you are so blind to the truth, brother.

  833. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:07 am 833.The messenger said …

    831.Sweetness, great comment, my friend.

    Keep spreading the good word, my friend.

  834. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:10 am 834.DPK said …

    Alex…. You just don’t understand because you have not accepted the truth. For a god who can change what he already knows will happen, a square circle is no problem.
    Lol. Why don’t we see any square circles? Simple, it is not his will. He is far more interested in making sure you cut off your foreskin and respect your parents and marry the women you rape. He also wants to insure that you don’t beat your slaves so brutally that they cannot get up after a few days, and that everyone recognize that wealthy, white men have god given rights that cannot be taken away. He wants to make absolutely certain you don’t do any work on Sunday, and that when offering blood and animal sacrifices you do it in a strictly specified manner….. But rest assured, square circles would be no problem at all.

  835. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:36 am 835.Sweetness said …

    “I just find it amusing that any intelligent person in this day and age would believe in a god obsessed with foreskins!”

    ROTF what is really freaky is the obsession Dippity Dew has with circumcision. Lol!!!!! That is all he can talk about. Dude, stay away from the knife, don’t cut your penis. Its OK, read the NT a little.

    Is this your fetish ? Lol!!!!!!!

    “Still waiting for your logical explanation of how your god can possibly be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent all at the same time”

    been done but talk about circumcision some more. Lol!!!!

  836. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:48 am 836.DPK said …

    been done but talk about circumcision some more. Lol!!!!

    another lie to add to your list… LOL.
    Ask your god if the foreskin thing is HIS fetish… he’s the one who included it as a requirement of his covenant! LOL!!!

    “Its OK, read the NT a little….”

    Did that already…. yeah, sorry, wasn’t impressed.
    What else ya got? LOL!!!

  837. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:52 am 837.alex said …

    “Sweetness, great comment, my friend.”

    before you fluff, ask the motherfucker if he agrees a rapist should be allowed to marry the victim. then ask if hell is temporary.

    “Still waiting for your logical explanation of how your god can possibly be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent all at the same time”
    been done but talk about circumcision some more. Lol!!!!

    and your dumbass, predictable answer?

    “Now if you can prove the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing do so.”
    http://goo.gl/vwa6Ij

    if you can prove the impossibility of odin kicking yahweh’s ass, do so. otherwise, yahweh’s owned.

    unstoppable force pushing over an immovable rock sound probable? fuck no. omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive and even xtians know this. the faith answer is reasonable, but hor’s dumbass will not admit. instead, the motherfucker clings to the impossible notion. just like a god requires no creator, but everything else requires one.

    dumbass.

  838. on 20 Mar 2014 at 3:36 am 838.Sweetness said …

    “Did that already…. yeah, sorry”

    Lol!!!! Sure you have. If you did, you would know circumcision is a Jewish custom, not a Christian. You might actually get a clue…..lol!!!

    Yes, you are pretty sorry Ok. Lol!!!

    Did you have a circumcision go wrong? Is that why you have this fetish? Lol!!!!

  839. on 20 Mar 2014 at 11:50 am 839.alex said …

    David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

    who’s the fetish god? why your author penned this in is astonishingly ridiculous.

    whether or not anybody has a fetish doesn’t do shit for your god, does it? of course, in your hor book, with all your stupid ass comments are recorded. check it out, not a single argument for your god. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    sorry if hor’s book is taking too long to render. the code has to navigate the minefield of crap.

  840. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:06 pm 840.Sweetness said …

    “why your author penned this in is astonishingly ridiculous.”

    The author David, penned it because King Saul did not want David to marry his daughter Michal. Saul did not believe David could do it

    LOL!!!! Is this your argument for a fetish?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh Alexis I love you buddy! Have a great day doing whatever you do.

  841. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:18 pm 841.alex said …

    “LOL!!!! Is this your argument for a fetish?”

    who’s arguing? did you read my previous comment. fetish or not, what the fuck does it do for your ridiculous book/god?

    remember, in your state of stupidity, you penned some shit as “martin” while fluffing same?

    how’s this an argument/proof for your lying ass? i’ve posted some shit before, but unlike your motherfucking ass, i don’t deliberately lie.

    Alex since you have neither you have a lot of free time huh?
    lol!!
    Martin,
    Good one!

    don’t believe me? http://goo.gl/P6JUS3

    martin:good one,martin. what a dumbass.

  842. on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:34 pm 842.freddies_dead said …

    830.A the lying prick said …

    “You’d think someone might have mentioned God telling Adam and Eve about the cornerstone of western morality, no?”

    Um, no…..the ancients relied on oral tradition.

    So you’re claiming that God told them all about the golden rule but no-one bothered to write it down. How do you know that?

    No problem there.

    Huge problems but they’re not mine.

    Glad to straighten you out. Lol!!!

    Straighten me out? You’re the one forced to make shit up because your infallible God forgot to put it in the Bible.

    “A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A?”

    Avoid??

    Yes, you’re just about to do it. Let’s watch…

    Lol!!!! No my friend, answered many times by me and others……um I mean all my other mes….lol!

    And there you go. No actual answer just an evasion like I noted.

    And really, you believe a fish fossil is proof of evolution!

    And there you go, back to being a lying prick because you’ve got nothing to substantiate your own claims.

    Lol!!!! You wouldn’t know evidence if it bit you on your sea turtle….lol!!!!!

    Coming from “the science guy” who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow, lol indeed.

    And mousey, prick is such a naughty word.

    Words are just words so go fuck yourself.

    You really should control you anger Alex Jr….lol!!!!

    There really is no anger, a pathetic lying prick like you is beneath contempt. I’ll save my ire for those that actually deserve it.

  843. on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:42 pm 843.DPK said …

    “you would know circumcision is a Jewish custom, not a Christian.”

    Oh, I see, it’s a custom… you mean it wasn’t commanded by god? How did that happen? Do you think maybe some ancient desert nomad made it up? Hmmm… that would seem like a good way to get ignorant superstitious people to do something (cutting off the tips of thier children’s penises) you wanted them to (maybe for hygiene reasons, like you said) that they wouldn’t otherwise agree to? Like eating pork… which unless stored and cooked thoroughly, can kill you? Just say god commanded it.
    But, but, but…. then the bible is not the perfect word of god!!! How can we know which parts are actually god’s holy instructions and which parts were just made up in order to control people???
    Surely you must have an answer.
    While you’re explaining that, don’t forget that despite you claims, you never explained how you god can be both omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.

  844. on 20 Mar 2014 at 3:23 pm 844.Sweetness said …

    “So you’re claiming that God told them all about the golden rule but no-one bothered to write it down”

    Yep, quite possible.

    “A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A?””

    Proven many times over.

    “And really, you believe a fish fossil is proof of evolution!”

    Lol!!! That stings huh? Documented rich here on WWGHA.

    “I’ll save my ire for those that actually deserve it.”

    Thanks Freddie mouse. Luv you buddy!

    “you never explained how you god can be both omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.”

    Been done go look it up. And frankly your obsession with foreskins and circumcision is just weird. Go get some help my man. Maybe you and My Little Pony guy can hook up.

    LOL!!! and reading your post on foreskins is like the ramblings of a madman. You admit you don’t understand the Bible. That’s very obvious. So, go take some classes covering theology, hermeneutics, doctrine and Covenants.

  845. on 20 Mar 2014 at 5:32 pm 845.alex said …

    “And frankly your obsession…”

    i know, right. atheists are so obsessed with bullshit. i don’t know why they can’t just swallow the shit like xtians do. hey, add this to your standard mo. right out of your book. http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    hor’s own words. who’s obsessed?

    “Not an expert on the subject but your obsession with it is funny”

    “What about his/her obsession with the Ponies?”

    “I don’t know why atheists are so obsessed with slavery.”

    “What is it with atheist and their obsessive use of vulgar language?”

    “But a God that supposedly doesn’t exist IS an obsession for you?”

    “He is obsessed.”

    “How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about a being that does not exist?”

    “DIP is intellectually challenged and thus his Santa obsession.”

    “You realize in order to no longer be a religion you will need to lose your obsession, right?”

    “Lets get back to important matters like discussing Mouse’s arrogance and his obsession with tagging other posters.”

    “Now you can stop obsessing over who is wearing what like a giggling 18 yr old at a prom!”

    “but in reality it is just about their obsession over God”

    “Anonymous and Sev are obsessed with playing.”

    “So why are Atheists obsessed if God’s existence cannot be proven and God’s nonexistence cannot be proven?”

    moron.

  846. on 20 Mar 2014 at 5:53 pm 846.DPK said …

    “So, go take some classes covering theology, hermeneutics, doctrine and Covenants.”

    should I include astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft too! LOL… this advice from a science who denies the fact of evolution.

    “you never explained how you god can be both omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.”

    “Been done go look it up.”

    You saying so doesn’t make it true laddie.. LOL. I understand your reluctance. Stop stamping your foot like a petulant child and admit it is not in anyway in the realm of possibility for a being to know with certainty what will occur and yet still be able to change it, or give us free will to change it. This is why you steadfastly refuse to answer the question… if tomorrow I can freely choose between X and Y, and god has a perfect knowledge that I will choose X, is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose Y?

    A truthful answer will cause your god delusion to shatter like glass around you. A refusal to answer will simply acknowledge that you are fully aware your belief is irrational and deluded.
    LOL……. game over for you…. no lives left!

  847. on 20 Mar 2014 at 9:27 pm 847.Sweetness said …

    “should I include astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft too!”

    If you like….sure. Lol!!!

    “this advice from a science who denies the fact of evolution.”

    lol!!!!!, I have always accepted the facts of evolution. Facts are not biases. Some of the conclusions I absolutely dispute. Prove me wrong. Ready to believe!!

    “A truthful answer will cause your god delusion to shatter like glass around you”

    Nope, it didn’t then or now.

  848. on 20 Mar 2014 at 9:31 pm 848.Sweetness said …

    “. A refusal to answer will simply acknowledge that you are fully aware your belief is irrational and deluded.”

    lol!!!!! That’s so cute. Actually my refusal to answer…..again…..means I already answered.

    So funny coming from atheist who refuse to defend lies.

    lol!!!

  849. on 20 Mar 2014 at 11:05 pm 849.DPK said …

    More avoidance.
    We understand.
    Bloop bleep blip…. Lives remaining 0.
    Hahaha…..

    Game over sweetheart. You lost!

  850. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:04 am 850.The messenger said …

    852.DPK, you do not have a brain, do you.

  851. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 851.alex said …

    “Prove me wrong. Ready to believe!!”

    old hat. an all knowing god who gives you free will is impossible. just because you say it is, doesn’t mean it’s possible. want more?

    if your premise is that the xtian god is the truth unless proven wrong, then you MUST agree that allah and bahai faith also are the truth unless proven wrong. monotheism says they can’t all be the truth, therefore all three gods are bull.

    “So funny coming from atheist who refuse to defend lies.”

    so pitiful for you motherfuckers, ain’t it. all your bullshit laid bare, and not a single proof to defend your bullshit god. go ahead search http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  852. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:52 am 852.alex said …

    “DPK, you do not have a brain, do you.”

    this from the motherfucker that said salt water cannot be dilutted?

    “.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.”

    from the same motherfucker that has seen heaven?

    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    you dumb motherfucker.

  853. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:02 am 853.alex said …

    “The author David, penned it because King Saul did not want David to marry his daughter Michal. Saul did not believe David could do it”

    david went out and snipped a shitload of penises and atheists laughed at the nonsense and you thought it was cool that david hisself wrote that in and that atheists shouldn’t be obsessing over it?

    when god’s angel was pawned by jacob and atheists yelled bullshit, atheists shouldn’t be obsessing over it?

    when xtian motherfuckers try to ban gay weddings and atheists yelled bullshit, atheists shouldn’t be obsessing over it?

    when xtian creationist try to teach their shit in schools, atheists objected, and atheists shouldn’t obsess over it?

    when motherfuckers like messenger, try to spread their shit, like the rapist marriage, atheists shouldn’t obsess over it?

    want more, bitch, motherfucker?

  854. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:03 am 854.DPK said …

    on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:04 am 854.The messenger said …
    852.DPK, you do not have a brain, do you.

    Not like yours, thankfully. Mine works.

  855. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:37 am 855.Sweetness said …

    “Not like yours, thankfully. Mine works”

    Well, so does a hamsters so……. ROTFL!!!!!! Sorry Dippity, love ya but I had to….lol!!!!

    I got off another good one. But like the hamster, you are sadly lacking.

    You don’t understand logic, the nature of evidence, the SM, the Bible or even evolution. You really understand very little Dippity Dew. Get an education and come back. :)

  856. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:46 am 856.alex said …

    “You don’t understand logic…”

    it’s fundamental, motherfucker. what choice did adam have when the all knowing god already knew the outcome?

    more of the same shit? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS
    go ahead, add more. it just goes to the top, doesn’t it?

  857. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 857.alex said …

    “I now think that the vision I saw was just a dream and I have stopped talking about it.”

    what made you realize it was a vision? was it because the salty water tasted the same after you put fresh water on it? was it because hor told your?

    you know who you are. here: http://goo.gl/pru0vR

  858. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 858.DPK said …

    “You don’t understand logic, the nature of evidence, the SM, the Bible or even evolution. You really understand very little Dippity Dew.”

    Sadly for you, any summary declaration from you carries absolutely zero weight, because your game is over. You have nothing but empty rhetoric.
    Lol!

    Bleep, bloop, plop plop fizz……

  859. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:49 pm 859.freddies_dead said …

    848.A the lying prick said …

    “So you’re claiming that God told them all about the golden rule but no-one bothered to write it down”

    Yep, quite possible.

    And there it is. When A decides something he likes is possible, that’s fine, no evidence required. Of course he’ll be a massive hypocrite when someone posits something he doesn’t like and demand they provide evidence for absolutely every minute thing their possibility entails.

    “A question you continually avoid. How do you know your God exists, A?””

    Proven many times over.

    As you avoid the question once again…
    If you actually had proof you’d present it, but you can’t as there isn’t any.

    “And really, you believe a fish fossil is proof of evolution!”

    Lol!!! That stings huh? Documented rich here on WWGHA.

    Your lies don’t sting A, they’re far too predictable for that. Evolution is a fact. You’ve even admitted it. Tiktaalik is evidence of evolution – a fish bearing some of the characteristics of later tetrapods – it’s one of those pesky transitional fossils that creationists say would prove evolution but then frantically deny the existence of. It was also found using the scientific method – observation, prediction, testing/experimentation – exactly as you asked for. You’ve never presented anything that refutes those facts – your mere disagreement doesn’t count when you won’t even define what you mean by evolution, transitional fossils or the scientific method (your disagreement with the examples given to you suggests your definitions differ from the standard ones).

    After being given the evidence you requested you soon resorted to type and moved the goalposts. The proof you required changed. No longer was it good enough to provide evidence of evolution found using the scientific method – as Tiktaalik is and was – you now wanted us to demonstrate how abiogenisis happened. Evolution only comes into play once there are self replicating organisms that can be affected by selection pressures, but you’re insisting that only an explanation of abiogenesis would prove evolution – so much for being “a science guy”. Anyone with even a modicum of scientific understanding knows that abiogenesis =/= evolution.

    And throughout all of the conversations you continue to refuse to provide evidence for your God – you can’t even come up with a decent argument. That’s fine though, I know this is because He is entirely imaginary.

  860. on 21 Mar 2014 at 5:31 pm 860.Sweetness said …

    “Evolution is a fact. ”

    Absolutely, micro is fact!

    Oh and macro is possible……….but macro evolution is not fact unless you provide the evidence. Lets see it. Lol!!!!

    “a fish bearing some of the characteristics of later tetrapods ”

    lol!!!!! Not proof. Man and dogs have heads but that is not proof of macro evolution. Lol!!!!!!

    “It was also found using the scientific method – observation, prediction, testing/experimentation”

    Bahhhhbbb! Wrong again. You observe a fossil. A fish that died many years ago. That is the only fact. You did not observe macro evolution. That is called imagination. Lol!!!!!!

    Exactly where dows the experiment and testing take place? Lol!!!!!!!

    Got anything else that is actually verifiable or falsifiable withe SM? Nice initial effort.

    :)

  861. on 21 Mar 2014 at 7:09 pm 861.Angus and Alexis said …

    Wow…
    When you thought A could not get any lamer…

  862. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:08 am 862.DPK said …

    Let’s review, I have asked, at least 50 times, for sweetie pie to answer a simple question: “This is why you steadfastly refuse to answer the question… if tomorrow I can freely choose between X and Y, and god has a perfect knowledge that I will choose X, is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose Y?”

    His reply: “lol!!!!! That’s so cute. Actually my refusal to answer…..again…..means I already answered.”

    Which is a lie. He never has. If I am wrong, show me where he has answered the question. In any event, it is a simple yes or no answer, so why the reluctance? He wastes time tap dancing and making up childish taunts and name calling not even worthy of a 5 year old! But, he doesn’t have time to answer yes, or no. Lol!

    There are only 2 possible answers, yes, it is possible, or no, it is not. Simple?
    Why does he adamantly refuse to answer and pretend that he already has? Easy answer… He is terrified.
    Yes, it is possible I can perform an act different from what god already knows I will do. Then god is not omniscient.
    No, it is not possible that I can choose an action different than what god already knows I will do. Then, my free will is an illusion and I can only do what has been predetermined.
    Indeed, if god is indeed omniscient, then not even he can change what he already knows has or will happen without negating his perfect knowledge. Therefore he cannot be omnipotent. If he is in fact omnipotent, he cannot possibly be omniscient.
    This is why sweetie will never answer the question, because it is game over for him!
    Lol….. No lives left….

  863. on 22 Mar 2014 at 4:28 am 863.RL Wooten said …

    I saw this article. Debunks fatalism well.

    We have been talking about divine omniscience and theological fatalism – whether or not everything happens necessarily because God foreknows everything that will happen. If God foreknows everything that is going to happen, then how can there be free will? How can you refrain from doing anything, if God already knows you are going to do it?

    Fatalism is the view that everything that happens happens necessarily. Theological fatalism is the view that because God foreknows everything, everything happens necessarily. The argument for theological fatalism goes like this:

    Let X be any event that you choose arbitrarily.

    1. Necessarily, if God foreknows that X will happen, then X will happen. (That is in virtue of what knowledge is. Knowledge is justified true belief – it is what is true. So if God knows that X will happen, then X will happen.)

    2. God foreknows that X will happen.

    3. Therefore, necessarily, X will happen. (So X cannot be free – everything that happens happens necessarily.)

    That is the argument for theological fatalism. What I pointed out last time is that this argument is logically invalid. That is to say, it breaks the rules of logic. All that follows from the two premises is:

    3.* Therefore, X will happen (not “Necessarily, X will happen.”)

    From the fact that God foreknows X will happen, you can be sure that X will happen. But it doesn’t follow that it will happen necessarily. It could fail to happen, but it won’t. If it were to fail to happen, then God wouldn’t have foreknown X.

    God’s foreknowledge of the future is very much like a time machine. For an illustration, I’ll use a scene in the time travel movie Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (this is my favorite time travel movie!). In it, Bill and Ted have this time traveling device that enables them to go back into the past. While they are back in the past, they get thrown into jail, and they say to each other, “How are we gonna get out? We’re locked in!” One of them suddenly has an idea, “I know – we’ll come back from the future, and we’ll leave the keys here so we can open the cell and get out!” The other one says, “Great idea! Where will we put them?” “Over there under the wastebasket!” So they go over and look under the wastebasket, and sure enough, there are the keys where they left them when they returned from the future! From the fact that they find the keys under the wastebasket, you know that they will go back in time and leave them there. But does that mean that they will necessarily go back and leave them there? No, they could fail to go back and leave the keys. But if they were to fail to go back, then the keys would not have been there to be found. From the fact that the keys are under the wastebasket, you know that they will go back in time and leave them there, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t do that freely. They can still freely refrain, but if they were to freely refrain, then the keys wouldn’t have been there when they looked.

    That is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X, and whichever one we do, God will foreknow. But his foreknowing it doesn’t determine it or render it necessary.

  864. on 22 Mar 2014 at 11:30 am 864.alex said …

    “That is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X, and whichever one we do, God will foreknow.”

    how about an illustration that omniscience (and your post) is bullshit? god needed rest in genesis? motherfucker should have made him some supercardio. adam, where are you? motherfucker, i see you. cover your narrow ass. god loves him odor of burnt flesh? god is disappointed in the evil? god forgets? …and on and on.

    until you can prove omniscience, it’s bullshit. add it to the shit list that includes infinity, immovable objects, and irresitable force.

    infinity? yeah. infinity/2 = infinity? wrong.

    …and hor. i don’t have to present an opposing viewpoint anymore than i have to explain why objects in the universe are accelerating away because i doubt dark energy.

    capiche, motherfucker?

  865. on 22 Mar 2014 at 1:19 pm 865.DPK said …

    “From the fact that God foreknows X will happen, you can be sure that X will happen. But it doesn’t follow that it will happen necessarily. It could fail to happen, but it won’t. If it were to fail to happen, then God wouldn’t have foreknown X.”

    Wtf? This makes about as much sense as saying, “the sky is blue, but the sky isn’t necessarily blue, it could be red, but it isn’t.
    Yes, if an omniscient god with perfect knowledge KNOWS X will happen, then X will happen, necessarily to the existence of a god with a perfect knowledge.
    If it were to fail to happen, then god could not of fore known it. The occurrence of X is necessary to the initial condition “if there exists a god who possesses perfect foreknowledge….”
    Epic fail…. Wanna try again?
    Very telling your example has to come from Bill and Ted! Lol

  866. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:20 pm 866.DPK said …

    “God’s foreknowledge of the future is very much like a time machine….”

    Great analogy!! Both things that can exist only in your imagination.

    “Bill and Ted have this time traveling device that enables them to go back into the past.”
    A physical impossibility, just like your god’s omniscience. You cannot travel back into the past because of exactly the kind of paradoxes you are about to describe as an explanation.
    “So they go over and look under the wastebasket, and sure enough, there are the keys where they left them when they returned from the future!”
    Except that if they were from the future they would already “remember” having hid the keys and wouldn’t need to “think of it” LOL…
    Hor, your silliness knows no bounds!!! OMG… Bill and Ted time traveling ins your justification for your claims about god’s powers.
    No wonder you didn’t want to answer…… hahahahahahahahaha.
    You and Messy are indeed cast from the same batch of crazy.
    Thanks.

  867. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:25 pm 867.DPK said …

    “hat is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X, and whichever one we do, God will foreknow. But his foreknowing it doesn’t determine it or render it necessary.”

    It most certainly does. If god’s foreknowledge is perfect, whether we are aware of it or not, there is no scenario that can exist in which we can do something which will NECESSARILY violate his perfect knowledge. It is most definitely necessary that the event unfold according to god’s knowledge in order to fulfill the condition of god having a perfect knowledge.

    Game over. Hor looses. Thanks for the illustration you borrowed from Mr.Wooten.

  868. on 22 Mar 2014 at 8:36 pm 868.alex said …

    “That is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X, and whichever one we do, God will foreknow. But his foreknowing it doesn’t determine it or render it necessary.”

    a bullshit illustration that hor will now refer to as his proof of an omniscient god giving free will.

    and now, hor will illustrate a square circle. see this here square? what you’re not seeing is that the corners are really rounded off to form a perfect circle. if you imagine god this this, then it is indeed.

    welcome rl! you’ve just been added as the newest member of the book of hor. see http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    congrats, moron. you’re at the top of the list.

  869. on 22 Mar 2014 at 8:48 pm 869.DPK said …

    Alex… the post was copied directly from William Lane Craig’s website. Sweet Little Hor simply posted it as one RL Wooten in order to avoid having to defend or discuss it. His tactics are so predictable. He knows the argument is fallacious and won’t stand up to even the most simple scrutiny.
    “From the fact that God foreknows X will happen, you can be sure that X will happen. But it doesn’t follow that it will happen necessarily. It could fail to happen, but it won’t.”

    It could fail to happen, but you can be sure that it can’t.” LOL.
    2+2=4. It could equal 8, it’s entirely possible that 2+2=8, except it doesn’t.

    hahahahahahaha…. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain… I am the great wizard of Oz!”

    You knew it was all turning to shit when it started with “God’s foreknowledge of the future is very much like a time machine. For an illustration, I’ll use a scene in the time travel movie Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (this is my favorite time travel movie!).”

    Yes, god’s foreknowledge of the future is very much like “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” Very, very much!

  870. on 22 Mar 2014 at 10:31 pm 870.alex said …

    to paraphrase the moron: (http://goo.gl/UYo1uS)

    And frankly your obsession with the bullshit god is just weird.

    ROTF what is really freaky is the obsession Dippity Dew has with the bullshit god.

    What about his/her obsession with the Bullshit god?

    I don’t know why atheists are so obsessed with the bullshit god.

    How else do you explain a group of people obsessed with arguing about the bullshit god?

    DIP is intellectually challenged and thus his bullshit god obsession

    Lets get back to important matters like discussing Mouse’s arrogance and his obsession with the bullshit god.

    Now you can stop obsessing over the bullshit god.

  871. on 23 Mar 2014 at 5:47 pm 871.Sweetness said …

    “That is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X”

    RL, when you start breaking down terms like “Theological Fatalism” you will completely lose this crowd. Lol!!!

    I broke it down for them in very elementary terms and they could not follow. Really one needs to have a very basic understanding about the attributes of God in order to follow the argument.

  872. on 23 Mar 2014 at 5:55 pm 872.DPK said …

    Sweetie Pie… there is a very simple way to explain this without resorting to time machines and sophomoric movie plots, which is what your tortured “explaination” involves. It is a simple question.
    If I have a choice between X and Y and god has a perfect foreknowledge that I will choose X, is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose Y?
    Remember WM Craig said:
    “From the fact that God foreknows X will happen, you can be sure that X will happen.”

    So if it is certain that X will happen, can Y happen?
    Yes or No?

  873. on 23 Mar 2014 at 6:53 pm 873.Sweetness said …

    “Remember WM Craig said:
    “From the fact that God foreknows X will happen, you can be sure that X will happen.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! The ignorance of Dippity never ceases to exist. If RL quoted Craig as saying this then he would agree with you………right? So what’s wrong with your claim?………hint: go back and read in content.

    So why don’t you claim victory?

    OK, lets go to the SM and have some fun. Lets test this Fatalism deal. Lets get started.

    Define action X
    Define action Y

  874. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:04 pm 874.DPK said …

    “If RL quoted Craig as saying this then he would agree with you………right? So what’s wrong with your claim?………hint: go back and read in content.”

    I have, since this fact does not agree with his predetermined conclusion that god exists and is omnipotent, he attempts to rationalize it by saying:
    “But it doesn’t follow that it will happen necessarily. It could fail to happen, but it won’t.”

    Fallacious. Assuming the original proposition “If there exists a god with perfect foreknowledge…”
    Then yes, it must NECESSARILY follow that that which he knows will happen, will happen.
    And what the fuck does “It could fail to happen, but it won’t.”, even mean?? If it absolutely won’t happen, then it most definitely could NOT “fail to happen”. LOL… that is the height of idiocy.

    “So why don’t you claim victory?”
    I do claim victory. LOL! You so silly.

    “OK, lets go to the SM and have some fun. Lets test this Fatalism deal. Lets get started.
    Define action X
    Define action Y”

    Irrelevant… you define X and Y.. it doesn’t matter. X and Y can be any events at all that are mutually exclusive of one another, meaning if X occurs, Y does not and visa versa.

    If god knows that X will occur and he has a perfect foreknowledge of that fact, does any scenario exist in which X will not occur?

    It is a very simple question that does not require time machines or torturous mental gymnastics. Let me help you…. IF your god has a perfect foreknowledge that X will occur and Y will not, the there will be NO possible scenario in which I. you, or even god, could chose to have Y occur and not X.
    Do you disagree?

  875. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:29 pm 875.DPK said …

    Typo

    And what the fuck does “It could fail to happen, but it won’t.”, even mean?? If it absolutely won’t (should say absolutely WILL) happen, then it most definitely could NOT “fail to happen”. LOL… that is the height of idiocy.

  876. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:56 pm 876.DPK said …

    Let’s put it in even simpler terms for you sweetie. Maybe the big words are too much for you.
    If:
    1. A god exists and has perfect foreknowledge = True
    and
    2. That god knows that tomorrow X will happen and Y will not happen = True
    and
    3. Tomorrow Y happens and not X
    Then, necessarily, either 1 or 2 must be therefore false.
    If 1 and 2 are both true. Then 3 cannot occur.

    Get it now?

  877. on 23 Mar 2014 at 9:52 pm 877.Anonymous said …

    Sweetpea agrees

    “it doesn’t follow that it will happen necessarily. It could fail to happen, but it won’t.”

    And that is how Sweetie, the “science guy”, uses the SM to bolster his position. Alternatively….If my grandmother had a set of nuts she’d be my grandfather…..but she doesn’t.

    Love the mental acrobatics these twits use to keep the faith. Theoillogical brilliance. Don’t forget to keep posting, sweetness. LOL!!! Always worth a laugh.

  878. on 23 Mar 2014 at 10:59 pm 878.DPK said …

    Here is the theist logic, according to Hor…. Borrowed from Craig…..
    If god knows x will happen, you can be certain x will happen.
    It is entirely possible that x will not happen, except for the fact that it isn’t possible at all. See?

    Yeah, makes perfect sense. Anonymous.. Your grandmother could have testicles and still be your grandmother, it is entirely possible except for the fact that it isn’t possible!
    Lol… I think I’m getting this. It’s like messy’s version of eternity that doesn’t mean forever, slaves that aren’t slaves, metaphorically stoning someone until they are dead, but not killing them, and the best of all… Sweetie’s atheists who believe in god.
    It’s very simple to accept once you abandon your ability to reason! Lol!

  879. on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:23 pm 879.alex said …

    “I broke it down for them in very elementary terms and they could not follow. Really one needs to have a very basic understanding about the attributes of God in order to follow the argument.”

    ain’t no damn basic understanding, just blind faith, motherfucker, just admit it. but, i understand your fierce defense. in the face of this concession, your bible stands as a pile of shit. if every single thing in the bible was known beforehand, anything that happened was inevitable and without choice.

    give it up, bitch. you’re a known liar as demonstrated by the book of hor http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, where you’ve been busted numerous times using different aliases.

  880. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:52 am 880.RL Wooten said …

    Dippity, stop stalling so we can test your Theological Fatalism you still insist is invalid although it has been debunked. Don’t be scared, lets test it.

    Lets get started.

    Define action X
    Define action Y

    RL,

    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :).

    lol!!!

  881. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:20 am 881.RL Wooten said …

    “That god knows that tomorrow X will happen and Y will not happen = True”

    Dippity Dew! You finally agree God exists?

    But how do you know God knows X will not happen and not Y? Why do you assume God thinks as a man? Is God limited by time? Is God limited to only two possibilities?

    But lets see your X and Y so we can test it :) Don’t be scared Dippity.

  882. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 882.alex said …

    “But how do you know God knows X will not happen and not Y?”

    you dumb motherfucker. that’s the description of an all knowing god. no? then what is it, bitch? it’s an attribute you attach to your bullshit god and you don’t even know what it is? then, what is there to test?

  883. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 883.alex said …

    “The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog.”

    who said that? you’re a lying motherfucker. check the book of hor at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    you are: hor a.k.a. A40Y-HorX-Troll,martin,science guy,ths sckence guy,biff,the hor,xenon,a,Sweetness,boz,RL Wooten

    you’re the dipshit martin that tried to fluff martin. here it is again: http://goo.gl/P6JUS3

  884. on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:43 am 884.DPK said …

    on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:52 am 884.RL Wooten said …
    Dippity, stop stalling so we can test your Theological Fatalism you still insist is invalid although it has been debunked.
    RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :).
    lol!!!

    Rotflol…. Sweetie once AGAIN forgets to change his moniker back and gets busted sock posting!!! And then goes on to warn his other self that he will be unfairly accused of sock posting! Awesome.

    Alex, make sure to add this to the book of Hor!

  885. on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:51 am 885.DPK said …

    “But how do you know God knows X will not happen and not Y? ”

    Ok, perhaps we are getting somewhere. Are you saying that this omniscient god does NOT know what will happen?
    Lol… You are so confused keeping track of who you are pretending to be that now you don’t even know what omniscience and perfect foreknowledge is?

    In case you missed it while pretending to be RL, I did define x and y.
    X and Y are any two events that I can choose between that are mutually exclusive.
    Any two you like, it doesn’t matter. How much more of a definition does your god require in order to exhibit omniscience? Lol.

  886. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:10 am 886.Anonymous said …

    Ooops, little “a”, sweetness, hor, etc, mistakenly posting as user RL Wooten:

    RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :).
    lol!!!

    DPK: Sweetie once AGAIN forgets to change his moniker back and gets busted sock posting!!!

    Must be dipping into the sauce again….maybe took another hit off the crack pipe. What a complete moron. God knew it would happen. LOL!!!!!

  887. on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:58 am 887.RL Wooten said …

    “I did define x and y.
    X and Y are any two events that I can choose between that are mutually exclusive.”

    Great! Define the events. Don’t be scared. Lets test this theory.

    “Sweetie once AGAIN forgets to change his moniker back and gets busted sock posting!!!”

    ROTFL!!!!, yeah …….forgot……Um, if you check above sweetness became RL, then became sweetness again then back to RL…….according the the atheist theory of moniker states. So how could I FORGET to change the moniker? ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Keep it simple, I am everybody.

    I’ll be the King of Prussia if you guys would just answer a question! lol!!!!

    RL, If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)

  888. on 24 Mar 2014 at 11:57 am 888.alex said …

    “RL, If you do return, my apologies. ”

    dude, pay attention. you’re posting as rl.

    “Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are”

    crykees? you austraylian, motherfucker?

    “Great! Define the events. Don’t be scared. Lets test this theory.”

    x = adam would eat the fruit
    y = adam would not.

    agree so far? if you don’t, you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  889. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:01 pm 889.freddies_dead said …

    891.A the lying prick posting as RL Wooten said …

    RL, If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)

    ROFLCOPTER! You just couldn’t make this shit up.

  890. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:04 pm 890.freddies_dead said …

    865.Angus and Alexis said …

    Wow…
    When you thought A could not get any lamer…

    I didn’t think it was possible but then he bought the RL Wooten sock out of the drawer.

  891. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:24 pm 891.freddies_dead said …

    864.A the lying prick said …

    “Evolution is a fact. ”

    Absolutely, micro is fact!

    It’s the same process that generates the speciation events.

    Oh and macro is possible……….but macro evolution is not fact unless you provide the evidence. Lets see it. Lol!!!!

    You were provided with the evidence, you refused to “wade through” it. That’s your problem not mine.

    “a fish bearing some of the characteristics of later tetrapods ”

    lol!!!!! Not proof.

    It wasn’t put forward as a proof. You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method and that’s exactly what you were given. Your subsequent attempts to change the conversation did nothing to affect that fact – they only gave us more evidence of your dishonesty.

    Man and dogs have heads but that is not proof of macro evolution. Lol!!!!!!

    No-one has ever claimed that it does.

    “It was also found using the scientific method – observation, prediction, testing/experimentation”

    Bahhhhbbb! Wrong again.

    Not in the slightest. As was presented on the thread in question, scientists observed a gap in the fossil record. They predicted where they would find a fossil that would fill the gap and they went out (tested the prediction) and found it. Once more, facts that you cannot change.

    You observe a fossil.

    Scientists have observed millions of them. That’s how we have the fossil record and can see the gaps in it.

    A fish that died many years ago. That is the only fact.

    Which just shows that you don’t understand the nature of facts and how they relate to one another.

    You did not observe macro evolution.

    I have never claimed to have done so. However, there are scientists who have – which you would know if you were prepared to “wade through” the evidence.

    That is called imagination. Lol!!!!!!

    The only imaginary thing here is your God.

    Exactly where dows the experiment and testing take place? Lol!!!!!!!

    Why A? Where do you think it should be carried out? A self-proclaimed “science guy” should have no problem answering.

    Got anything else that is actually verifiable or falsifiable withe SM?

    Asked and answered. I would say that your failure to “wade through” the evidence is making you look even more of an idiot but I’m pretty sure that’s not possible when compared to your inability to keep your socks straight.

    Nice initial effort.

    :)

    Oh it was more than nice. It devastated your objections to evolution and you’ve spent the last few months desperately denying the evidence as if what you want has any bearing on it. Consistent with your “wishing makes it so” worldview I’ll grant you but, because your worldview is wrong, it doesn’t affect the facts one iota.

  892. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:08 pm 892.DPK said …

    “ROTFL!!!!, yeah …….forgot……Um, if you check above sweetness became RL, then became sweetness again then back to RL…….”

    That’s simple..different computers. LOL You are such a deceitful lying piece of shit. Busted for what, the 5th time now.. and you resort to the “yeah, I meant to do that. hahahahahaha. To point look at this brilliant exchange:
    “884.RL Wooten said …
    RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog….”
    Hey.. did RL answer you? LOL!!! So, you create RL in order to postulate a theory without having to defend it. A theory that has been shown to be completely fallacious and full of holes. And then as a diversion you play the pity card by proclaiming how the evil atheists accuse you of sock puppeting in order to cause a diversion, and in doing so you get caught sock puppeting!!!
    It’s just too good! ROTFLOL!

  893. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:12 pm 893.DPK said …

    “Define the events. Don’t be scared. Lets test this theory.”

    You have a serious reading comprehension problem I did define the events:

    “X and Y are any two events that I can choose between that are mutually exclusive.”

    Maybe you need to give us your explanation of “define” because it is obviously different from the rest of humanity.Are there now only SPECIFIC events that you claim god has a perfect foreknowledge of?

    Let’s end this. If your god knows that tomorrow “X” will occur,Craig says you can be CERTAIN X will occur. Is that correct, or is he wrong? Is it certain X will occur, or is there ANY possible scenario in which X will not occur and god will be incorrect?
    Don’t be afraid… answer the question. Here is a hint, the answer can be yes, or no, and doesn’t involve time machines.

  894. on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:31 pm 894.RL Wooten said …

    “It’s the same process that generates the speciation events.”

    Actually its not Freddie mouse. Micro is observed, macro is assumed. Not to mention breeders can never make a dog anything but a dog. PROOF Freddie, we must have proof! Lol!!!

    “You were provided with the evidence”

    Mo I was presented with links containing “might” “could” “maybe”. Your problem, not mine. Bring some proof verified by the SM.

    “You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method”

    Yes, and a fossil is not proof macro took place. Prove it is just mo more than a fish! Got something to prove your claim and disprove mine?

    “scientists observed a gap in the fossil record”

    Gaps? They have caverns. The fossil record shows species remaining as their species. The rest is artist renderings and imagination.

    “It devastated your objections to evolution”

    ROTFL!!!! Really? Your fish fossil? You proved a fish died and fossilized! Whew! How to overcome that! We have more marine fossils than anything and even some eating their lunch. Is that mote proof? Lol!!!!!!

  895. on 24 Mar 2014 at 7:39 pm 895.DPK said …

    ” breeders can never make a dog anything but a dog.”

    Oh sweetie… your 5th grade understanding of the scientific method is not doing you any good. LOL
    How long exactly do you think dogs have existed? Now how old is the earth, do you think?

    Now diversions aside… don’t be scared, answer the question. There is no need to be afraid of the truth:
    If your god knows that tomorrow “X” will occur, Craig says you can be CERTAIN X will occur. This is because god is supposedly omniscient, and posses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. Is that correct, or is he wrong? Is it certain X will occur, or is there ANY possible scenario in which X will not occur and god will be incorrect?

  896. on 24 Mar 2014 at 7:54 pm 896.alex said …

    “Now diversions aside… don’t be scared, answer the question.”

    now, who’ll it be? A40Y-HorX-Troll, martin, science guy, ths sckence guy, biff, the hor, xenon, a, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten?

    http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  897. on 24 Mar 2014 at 8:22 pm 897.DPK said …

    “now, who’ll it be? A40Y-HorX-Troll, martin, science guy, ths sckence guy, biff, the hor, xenon, a, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten?”

    It doesn’t matter really… none of them have the guts to answer the question. Instead, we will dance around it and try to talk about dogs instead. LOL!

  898. on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:08 pm 898.Anonymous said …

    DPK

    Instead, we will dance around it and try to talk about dogs instead.

    All of the roads lead to abiogenesis, eventually. YAWN. **sigh**

    BTW, RL Wooten, why not revert back to the original id of Horatio? Oh yeah, that user id, like all of the others you’ve employed, has had their asses handed to them time and again. No wonder you keep trying to “micro-evolve” new identities.

  899. on 25 Mar 2014 at 12:05 am 899.The messenger said …

    899.alex, brother, I have shown you proof many times in the past.

  900. on 25 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 900.The messenger said …

    817.freddies_dead, simply denying the validity of my claims does not disprove them. Provide proof to support your claims.

  901. on 25 Mar 2014 at 2:02 am 901.alex said …

    “alex, brother, I have shown you proof many times in the past.”

    just because you say salt water CANNOT be dilutted doesn’t mean it’s true, you moron.

    just because you’re too stupid to look it up, doesn’t mean donkies are NOT in the bible, you moron.

    are these the proofs you were refering to as archived your dumbass messenger’s book? http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  902. on 25 Mar 2014 at 3:04 am 902.alex said …

    “simply denying the validity of my claims does not disprove them. Provide proof to support your claims.”

    no need to. you did it, as per your own words.

    “I have also seen heaven my self and it is amazing.”

    “I now think that the vision I saw was just a dream”

    now, shut the fuck up, bitch motherfucker.

  903. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:12 pm 903.freddies_dead said …

    898.A the lying prick posting as RL Wooten said …

    “It’s the same process that generates the speciation events.”

    Actually its not Freddie mouse.

    Actually it is. Allele frequencies change over time – that’s the process of evolution. At some point they will become so different from the original genetic pool that the current population is a distinct and separate species. Actual science guys know this, idiots like you deny it.

    Micro is observed, macro is assumed.

    No, speciation has been observed too. You’d know that if you’d “waded through” the evidence you were given.

    Not to mention breeders can never make a dog anything but a dog.

    Is this like a “kind” thing? Dog kind? Cat kind? Bird kind? Where it can be everything from a sub-species (dog) to a class (bird) or even higher? Lets have your definition of a species A. We’ve all seen that you have some very odd notions of what some very well known and well understood concepts mean so lets see what you mean by species. Then we can see if what everyone else knows as speciation can ever match your demand.

    PROOF Freddie, we must have proof! Lol!!!

    He says loudly, all the while closing his eyes and covering his ears.

    “You were provided with the evidence”

    Mo I was presented with links containing “might” “could” “maybe”. Your problem, not mine.

    Apart from wondering how you know this as you said you weren’t prepared to “wade through” the links you were given, you now want scientists to be as deceitful and dishonest as theists and couch everything in the language of absolutes, despite knowing they don’t have every single piece of evidence that may exist. Everyone else understands “proof” as being “sufficient” but you want absolute, in which case you’ll never have your “proof” because nothing will ever conform to your unreasonable standard. Of course I have to note that when it comes to your theism you’re quite happy to believe despite the total and utter lack of evidence for your God. So now we know you have 2 standards. 1 standard is designed solely to protect your irrational God belief and has nothing to do with actual science, the other is so utterly abject that it allows anything and everything to stand as evidence for your God. It makes you a lousy hypocrite but then that’s nothing new either.

    Bring some proof verified by the SM.

    And now you simply double down on your stupidity. I know, I didn’t think that was possible either but hey, you managed it. Everyone with a basic understanding of the SM recognises the tentative nature of the knowledge gained from it. When you don’t have every last piece of evidence then language like “might”, “could” and “maybe” is absolutely necessary when talking about your conclusions. You’ve also stated that your concept of “proof” requires absolutes (even though you don’t use the same standard for your God belief). So you asking for your version of “proof” using the SM is logically incoherent – nothing new from you though.

    “You asked for evidence of evolution found using the scientific method”

    Yes, and a fossil is not proof macro took place.

    It was never provided as such.

    Prove it is just mo more than a fish!

    What is this word salad.

    Got something to prove your claim and disprove mine?

    What is your claim A? Goddidit? An intelligent designer? A space turtle? We’ve been at this for a few months now and so far you’ve refused to tell us what your claim is. I know why you won’t, it’s because you’ve got zero evidence to present in support of it, but that doesn’t tend to stop you. Normally you’ll simply make a baseless assertion and refuse to back it up at all, preferring to dodge the questions directed to you and divert the conversation away from your lack of evidence whilst hypocritically demanding others back up everything they say.

    “scientists observed a gap in the fossil record”

    Gaps? They have caverns.

    Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurrence, yet we still have millions of them, allowing us to build a fairly good record.

    The fossil record shows species remaining as their species.

    Only if you totally ignore faunal succession.

    The rest is artist renderings and imagination.

    Like every picture and concept of God ever you mean?

    “It devastated your objections to evolution”

    ROTFL!!!! Really?

    Yes, really. You’ve got absolutely nothing in response so you’re left trying (and failing) to twist everything to make it seem less than it was. You’re about to do it again right now.

    Your fish fossil? You proved a fish died and fossilized! Whew! How to overcome that! We have more marine fossils than anything and even some eating their lunch. Is that mote proof? Lol!!!!!!

    And there you are. Ignoring every other piece of evidence you were given and trying to make out the whole conversation rested on one single fossil. It’s because you’re a lying prick. Hell, even other theists refuse to support you in your lies. You’re left having to make people up to get yourself an “Amen”. If it wasn’t so funny I’d probably feel sorry for you.

  904. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:33 pm 904.freddies_dead said …

    904.The messenger said …

    817.freddies_dead, simply denying the validity of my claims does not disprove them.

    What claims are you referring to? And where do you think you’ve supported them enough to demonstrate their validity?

    I think you’ll find that rather than simply deny your claims I have, in fact, dismissed them by showing that they are invalid based on what your Bible actually says.

    Provide proof to support your claims.

    Oh the irony.

    You’ve yet to give anything more than your own opinion on what the Bible says.

    You have a concept of eternality that actually denies the eternal.

    You claim that passages that state quite literally “stone them with stones until they are dead” aren’t really a command to stone people … with stones … until they’re dead.

    You claim that we don’t actually need to believe in God to get to Heaven – despite pretty much every Holy book having something very different to say about the destination of the unbeliever’s soul.

    You claim to be a liberal Catholic whilst disagreeing with the church on almost every point of doctrine.

    You’ve claimed that the longevity of Christianity/Judaism proves it’s truth yet deny the truth of religions like Hinduism which have been around even longer.

    You’ve made claim after claim after claim without backing any of them up with anything that could called sufficient.

  905. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:55 pm 905.freddies_dead said …

    That last paragraph should have read:

    You’ve made claim after claim after claim without backing any of them up with anything that could be called sufficient evidence.

  906. on 25 Mar 2014 at 8:20 pm 906.RL Wooten said …

    “A the lying prick’

    Oh silly Freddie mouse, starting with personal attacks. Off to a terrible start. lol!!!

    “At some point they will become so different from the original genetic pool that the current population is a distinct and separate species.”

    Great! But why is there still controversy? Will freddie mouse (Or his double Anonymous) bring us proof using the SM? Lets see!!

    “you now want scientists to be as deceitful and dishonest as theists and couch everything in the language of absolutes, despite knowing they don’t have every single piece of evidence”

    Ah Hah! Admission there is really no proof to verify macroevolution but a great deal of assumptions!! Are scientist being dishonest? Dawkins and others claim it is fact! lol!! Others have put forth false data to support this “fact” of macroevolution. lol!!!

    “As was presented on the thread in question, scientists observed a gap in the fossil record. They predicted where they would find a fossil that would fill the gap”

    So, the to fill the gap they needed a fish with a bump? Hmmmm, but how does this prove macroevolution.? Why couldn’t the fossil just be a fish with a bump and nothing more? Other scientist claim it is NOT a transitional.

    “What is your claim A?”

    Too complicated? My claim is the fossil found is just a fish, no more. The bump is not becoming a leg. lol!!!!!

    “Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurrence”

    YES. thanks. And a very small number are land animals. The fossil record is offers very little for you.

    “Yes, really. You’ve got absolutely nothing in response so you’re left trying (and failing) to twist everything to make it seem less than it was.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Don’t need to offer a thing. You have offered nothing that we can test with SM. Well, you did prove a fish fossil was found and scientist expect to find a fish fossil with a bump to fill the gap. lol!!!

    “And there you are. Ignoring every other piece of evidence you were given and trying to make out the whole conversation rested on one single fossil.”

    No, the fish fossil is all you have offered. I have asked for more but you add nothing. But, son, let me just add. I also accepted macro as fact as an atheist. I got a minor in Biology with my undergrad. Admittedly that was over 25 yrs ago. So you need to have something fairly recent if you will prove this theory. I’m a simple man, spell it out son! lol!!!!!

    Of course I have to note that when it comes to your macroevolution you’re quite happy to believe despite the total and utter lack of evidence for your theory.

  907. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 907.The messenger said …

    904.alex, yes, that proof is located in some of my past comments.

    TRY reading them, you might learn something.

    All you do is through insults, like how monkeys throw poop.

  908. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:42 pm 908.The messenger said …

    907.freddies_dead, it makes since that the golden rule was preached to the first humans(by GOD), and that is why some religions include similar rules.

  909. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:44 pm 909.DPK said …

    912.RL Wooten said …
    “Great! But why is there still controversy?”
    Hahaha… there is no controversy.

    Now, are you ever going to answer this question:
    If your god knows that tomorrow “X” will occur, W.L.Craig, who YOU quoted, says in your time travel Bill and Ted explanation that “you can be CERTAIN X will occur.”
    Is that correct, or is he wrong?
    Is it certain X will occur, or is there ANY possible scenario in which X will not occur and god will be incorrect?
    How come this simple question terrifies you so much? Why can’t you answer it, Hor? What’s the problem that you are so desperately trying to avoid?

  910. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:36 am 910.alex said …

    “alex, yes, that proof is located in some of my past comments. TRY reading them, you might learn something.”

    so, in your collection of posts, http://goo.gl/ib8BHO, i need to read thru them, wade thru all the bullshit and somehow, find some shit that i might learn something from?

    dejavu, motherfucker?

  911. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 911.The messenger said …

    All of the laws that GOD wants us to follow stand on two laws.

    Matthew 22:36-40

    Love GOD more than anything, and love your neighbor as much as you love your self.

  912. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 912.The messenger said …

    Do not see GOD’s laws and teachings through Christians or Jews, because they break his laws and let their weaknesses overtake them from time to time.

    See GOD’s laws through mass at a synagogue or church and through reading the text of the bible.

  913. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:56 am 913.alex said …

    912.RL Wooten said …

    you did it, motherfucker. you’ve debunked the entire field of science. congrats.

    now, about this god of yours. when prayers aren’t answered, folk say, god has other plans. when prayers seemed answered, statistically significant, they’re not.

    so, if god planned and knows how everyone’s lives would unfold, how would anybody do anything different?

    if atheists were designed and compelled by the plan to laugh at your motherfucking ass, why are you here posting your shit?

  914. on 26 Mar 2014 at 1:00 am 914.alex said …

    “Love GOD more than anything, and love your neighbor as much as you love your self”

    same author as:

    “DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.”

    guess who? the dumbass messenger! see his entire shitpile at: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  915. on 26 Mar 2014 at 3:05 am 915.Anonymous said …

    Horatio, regarding evolution:

    Great! But why is there still controversy? Will freddie mouse (Or his double Anonymous) bring us proof using the SM?

    Are you talking about Ken Ham and his questioning of the theory? Is that the controversy?

    Proof? Here we go again…..Horatio, what is the age of the planet Earth? Try and be a “science guy”.

  916. on 26 Mar 2014 at 11:23 am 916.RL Wooten said …

    “Are you talking about Ken Ham and his questioning of the theory? Is that the controversy?”

    I don’t know. Does he call macroevolution “fact”?

    “Horatio, what is the age of the planet Earth?”

    Who is Horatio? Never even seen anyone by that handle.

    Freddie mouse, don’t change the subject. Just show us how the REAL facts (not speculation and art work) lead to macroecolution. Remember, must use SM.

  917. on 26 Mar 2014 at 11:44 am 917.alex said …

    “Who is Horatio? Never even seen anyone by that handle.”

    you sure about that? just as sure about your god?

  918. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:01 pm 918.alex said …

    “Who is Horatio? Never even seen anyone by that handle.”

    dude, check your book: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    ctrl-f finds ‘horatio’ along with ‘A’ along with ‘hor’, you dumb motherfucker.

    as your book demonstrates, you haven’t presented a single case for your god. all youse got is a bunch of nonsensical crap about nothing. already toldya, the entire field of science is crap, but even then, you got nothing, nada, nill, zero, for your god.

    what? more mackeral evolution? banana shape? ambiogenetifuck? ocean swimming? nda programmar?

  919. on 26 Mar 2014 at 1:21 pm 919.Anonymous said …

    Mousey: what is the age of the planet Earth?

    Horatio: Freddie mouse, don’t change the subject. Just show us how the REAL facts (not speculation and art work) lead to macroecolution. Remember, must use SM.

    We have strike 1, big guy. I lobbed a softie and you just watched it cross the plate. Yes, we need you to state a time frame when talking evolution.

    Ok, here comes another slow lob: When did first life emerge on our planet Earth? Try and be a real “science guy”

  920. on 26 Mar 2014 at 2:58 pm 920.DPK said …

    You are never going to get an honest response from him.
    This is the guy who, accidentally posting as RL said “RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog….”
    hahahaha

    Then he said “a dog can never be anything but a dog..” and when asked how long dogs have existed on earth….. silence…. hahaha.

    Just like his response to every other question asked of him that he cannot answer honestly. Silence.

  921. on 26 Mar 2014 at 4:53 pm 921.RL The Science Guy said …

    “we need you to state a time frame when talking evolution.”

    Bahhhhhhh!!!!!, you have not earned the privilege of asking a question. As a man of science, I recognize the importance of the SM. Using this, show us that macro evolution is indeed fact. Use whatever time framed which best strengthens your case

    Such a simple question, straight forward and asked many times.

    Whadda ya got Freddie? mouse?

    Will you continue is dishonesty? Or will you let slip a few more confessions that macro is not fact?

    Audience……lets watch the events unfold……

  922. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:17 pm 922.alex said …

    “Will you continue is dishonesty?”

    says the moron, who continues to change his moniker.

    it don’t matter, fool. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    “Who is Horatio? Never even seen anyone by that handle.”

    wanna try that again?

  923. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:22 pm 923.alex said …

    add to the list why i care about the bullshit god.

    An 8-year-old Virginia girl has left her private, Christian school after administrators complained that her appearance was not sufficiently feminine…

    just like all the bullshit xtian absolutes, what/where is the criteria/checklist?

  924. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:53 pm 924.Anonymous said …

    “we need you to state a time frame when talking evolution.”
    Bahhhhhhh!!!!!

    Audience……lets watch the events unfold……

    Well, Horatio, looks like we have strike number two. You didn’t even whiff on that one.

    OK, “science guy”, one last try. Will we see a swing and a miss, caught watching, or will it be a home run? I’ve made my bet.

    Here goes: How long have humans existed on the planet Earth? Try employing some grey matter this time, “science guy”.

  925. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:58 pm 925.Anonymous said …

    Horatio: Such a simple question, straight forward and asked many times.

    Agreed. Here are two of them asked yet again:

    Horatio, what is the age of the planet Earth?
    When did first life emerge on our planet Earth?

  926. on 26 Mar 2014 at 10:04 pm 926.alex said …

    “Horatio, what is the age of the planet Earth?”

    he answered back with:
    “Who cares? Mr. Rubio is a politician. The bigger question how big is the deficit and how big is the unemployment number and how will we lower these numbers?”

    hor doesn’t care, but he loves to argue about evolution that bullshitifies his creationism shit.

    and the unkindest, stoopidest cut of all:

    “So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God?”
    Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!

    “I can do something an omniscient God doesn?t know I?m going to do?”

    No!,that’s called omniscience silly! Stay with me here. God is not an atheist on a power trip. He will allow you to make bad chooses but still have the foreknowledge you will make them. Really a simple concept.

    against the will of an omnipotent God! sounds like a square circle to me. or against the edge of an infinite universe.

    there’s more. it’s a freakin goldmine: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  927. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:06 am 927.The messenger said …

    Alex, you are so delusional.

    I pity you, brother.

  928. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:10 am 928.The messenger said …

    929.alex, GOD knows what we will do, because he knows every detail of us, and how we react to situations.

    We have free will because our actions are not forced upon us.

  929. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:11 am 929.The messenger said …

    Attention, ALL OF YOU.

    All of the laws that GOD wants us to follow stand on two laws.

    Matthew 22:36-40

    Love GOD more than anything, and love your neighbor as much as you love your self.

  930. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:24 am 930.RL The Science Guy said …

    “will it be a home run? I’ve made my bet.”

    Oh Freddie & Mouse you are so cute when you try to be authoritative. Glad to get to your questions but you will have to earn the right by answering mine.

    Here goes again for the 1267 time.

    As a man of science, I recognize the importance of the SM. Using this, show us that macro evolution is indeed fact. Use whatever time framed which best strengthens your case.

    Audience will he? Can he? I say no! But lightning does strike on occasion! Lol!!!!!

  931. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:58 am 931.Anonymous said …

    Horatio bleats:

    Glad to get to your questions
    Here goes again for the 1267 time.
    Audience will he? Can he?

    STTTTRIIIIKKKKE THREE. You’re outta there big fella. Stood to piss and couldn’t produce a drop.
    Looks like I placed my bet on the right outcome…..The loser didn’t even take a swing.
    tsk, tsk….”science guy” is a great and ironic name, indeed.

  932. on 27 Mar 2014 at 2:46 am 932.RL The Science Guy said …

    “STTTTRIIIIKKKKE THREE. You’re outta there big fella. Stood”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! Coming from a spectator outside the stadium who can’t even get a ticket!

    LOL!!!!!!!!!

    Its OK Freddie & Mouse. I know why you will never answer :)

  933. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:14 am 933.alex said …

    “you are so delusional. I pity you, brother.”

    and your shit is not tolerated. go fuck yourself. learn, bitch.

    just like a square circle, this is not possible:

    “GOD knows what we will do, because he knows every detail of us, and how we react to situations.
    We have free will because our actions are not forced upon us.”

    WILL DO and FREE WILL are mutually exclusive, dumbass. but you’ve demonstrated that you’re incapable of learning. fundamental salt water dilution is beyond your grasp, so….

  934. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:22 am 934.alex said …

    “Love GOD more than anything, and love your neighbor as much as you love your self.”

    wrong, motherfucker. your god is shit. you can do good without the need of your bullshit god. all you need to believe is in the Great Sea Turtle.

  935. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:32 am 935.alex said …

    935.The messenger said …
    “Attention, ALL OF YOU.” bleh, bleh.

    go check http://goo.gl/ib8BHO
    i sorted your dumbest moments on top. you likey?

  936. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:42 am 936.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “Love GOD more than anything, and love your neighbor as much as you love your self.”

    Love an imaginary being more than my family?

    Go fuck yourself.

  937. on 27 Mar 2014 at 12:23 pm 937.alex said …

    “Even though the bible does not state that God created the ansestors of the animals of 2013, it is logical to say that he did infact create the ansestors of the modern day animals, and those animals that God created in the beginning did infact evolve into the modern animals that we know today.”

    “does not” morphing into “infact”, only possible in the mind of guess who? http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    thanks to messenger and hor, my comedy gig is going good. the material is so plentiful. i’m so fucking blessed.

  938. on 27 Mar 2014 at 2:55 pm 938.freddies_dead said …

    910.A the lying prick posting as RL Wooten said …

    “A the lying prick’

    Oh silly Freddie mouse, starting with personal attacks. Off to a terrible start. lol!!!

    It’s not a personal attack when it’s true.

    “At some point they will become so different from the original genetic pool that the current population is a distinct and separate species.”

    Great! But why is there still controversy?

    There is no controversy.

    Will freddie mouse (Or his double Anonymous) bring us proof using the SM? Lets see!!

    Already done. Your denial is just another example of your dishonesty.

    “you now want scientists to be as deceitful and dishonest as theists and couch everything in the language of absolutes, despite knowing they don’t have every single piece of evidence”

    Ah Hah! Admission there is really no proof to verify macroevolution but a great deal of assumptions!!

    Nope, there’s proof beyond any reasonable doubt that verifies evolution but you’re not interested in that. You’ve redefined “proof” to suit your own purpose i.e. to deny evolution happens. I’m not entirely sure why, as evolution has nothing to say on the existence of deities. It does show the Genesis account to be nothing more than a myth but, unless you’re an idiot who insists the Bible is both absolutely literal and infallible, this shouldn’t be a problem at all.

    Are scientist being dishonest?

    Nope.

    Dawkins and others claim it is fact! lol!!

    Claim what is fact? Evolution? It is a fact. The allele frequencies of populations change over time. Do you deny this too?

    Others have put forth false data to support this “fact” of macroevolution. lol!!!

    You’ll be presenting this data and showing how it’s false then.

    “As was presented on the thread in question, scientists observed a gap in the fossil record. They predicted where they would find a fossil that would fill the gap”

    So, the to fill the gap they needed a fish with a bump? Hmmmm, but how does this prove macroevolution.?

    And there’s you lying about what was presented. Because you’re a lying prick.

    Why couldn’t the fossil just be a fish with a bump and nothing more? Other scientist claim it is NOT a transitional.

    So you’ll be presenting evidence of these scientists making said claim and the evidence they use to back it up then.

    “What is your claim A?”

    Too complicated? My claim is the fossil found is just a fish, no more. The bump is not becoming a leg. lol!!!!!

    Your deliberate and cowardly misinterpretation of the question is duly noted.

    Tiktaalik was a fish, no-one has ever claimed otherwise, but some of the characteristics you’re trying to downplay as a “bump” were actually (from the wiki article):

    Fish
    “fish gills”
    “fish scales”
    “fish fins”

    Fishapod
    “half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes”
    “half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region”

    Tetrapod
    “tetrapod rib bones”
    “tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle”
    “tetrapod lungs”

    “Fossilisation is a relatively rare occurrence”

    YES. thanks. And a very small number are land animals. The fossil record is offers very little for you.

    Nope, as I noted, we still have millions of fossils which all add up to a decent record which clearly shows faunal succession.

    “Yes, really. You’ve got absolutely nothing in response so you’re left trying (and failing) to twist everything to make it seem less than it was.”

    ROTFL!!!!! Don’t need to offer a thing.

    You do but you won’t because you have nothing to offer.

    You have offered nothing that we can test with SM. Well, you did prove a fish fossil was found and scientist expect to find a fish fossil with a bump to fill the gap. lol!!!

    And there’s you lying about what was presented. Because you’re a lying prick.

    “And there you are. Ignoring every other piece of evidence you were given and trying to make out the whole conversation rested on one single fossil.”

    No, the fish fossil is all you have offered.

    And there’s you lying about what was presented. Because you’re a lying prick.

    I have asked for more but you add nothing.

    And there’s you lying about what was presented. Because you’re a lying prick. You were presented with links to so much more evidence but you refused to “wade through” it. This is your problem, not mine.

    But, son, let me just add. I also accepted macro as fact as an atheist. I got a minor in Biology with my undergrad.

    I don’t believe any of these claims because, quite apart from you demonstrating time and again that you don’t understand science or the scientific method, you have shown yourself to be a lying prick.

    Admittedly that was over 25 yrs ago. So you need to have something fairly recent if you will prove this theory. I’m a simple man, spell it out son! lol!!!!!

    Of course I have to note that when it comes to your macroevolution you’re quite happy to believe despite the total and utter lack of evidence for your theory.

    And there’s you lying about what was presented. Because you’re a lying prick.

    My tolerance for your lies and bullshit has worn thin once more so it’s back in your box you go. Unless you finally get around to presenting actual evidence to support your baseless assertions I’ll go back to ignoring your crap and simply pointing out that you’re a lying prick.

  939. on 27 Mar 2014 at 3:00 pm 939.freddies_dead said …

    912.The messenger said …

    907.freddies_dead, it makes since that the golden rule was preached to the first humans(by GOD), and that is why some religions include similar rules.

    Where is the evidence to support your claim that God taught the golden rule to the first humans (presumably Adam and Eve)? I’ve checked the Bible and I can’t see it but maybe you have something else?

  940. on 27 Mar 2014 at 4:36 pm 940.alex said …

    “Where is the evidence to support your claim that God taught the golden rule to the first humans (presumably Adam and Eve)?”

    uhmmm, the self proclaimed dipshit, sole interpreter of the gospel. he, who proclaims that bible shit is not literal. he, who proclaims “Hell does not last forever.”.

    the same asshole who when questioned about his bullshit bible, presents as evidence, the same bible.

    like the kid that blurts out. “santa is real. he spoke to me in a dream”.

    messenger’s shitpile: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  941. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:41 pm 941.R.U. Kiddin said …

    “As a man of science, I recognize the importance of the SM. Using this, show us that macro evolution is indeed fact.”

    You have been directed several times here to go over to talkorigins(dot)org and check out the paper, complete with credits and references, titled:

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
    The Scientific Case for Common Descent

    Then feel free to rebutt it if you’d like but don’t forget your evidence and sources! LOL, time machines, and Bill and Ted are not considered evidence or credible sources.

    Um, this is R.U. Kiddin posting, not DPK… just in case you were wondering.

  942. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:42 pm 942.R.U. Kiddin said …

    Great job R.U.
    You are so smart.

    DPK

  943. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:43 pm 943.DPK said …

    Oh… that wasn’t me… I mean I didn’t backslap R.U. as me pretending to be R.U. or anything like that. Must be a computer virus… LOL………..

  944. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:44 pm 944.DPK said …

    Nevermind, I meant to do that… hahahaha. Yeah, that’s it… I did it on purpose.

  945. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:06 pm 945.Anonymous said …

    “STTTTRIIIIKKKKE THREE. You’re outta there big fella. Stood to piss and couldn’t produce a drop.”
    ROTFL!!!!!!!! Coming from a spectator outside the stadium who can’t even get a ticket!

    Ummm, Horatio, it was me, Mousey, who was pitching. Have you been getting liquored again?
    You failed, three strikes. Next batter up is Castbound, Martin, The Biffy, or do we get Xenon? Take your pick.

    Don’t worry Horatio: I know why you will never answer. Elementary grade school science ain’t your thing exactly.

  946. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:09 pm 946.alex said …

    heh, heh. xtian motherfuckers, going crazy.

    it’s not so bad, dudes. we’re all going to die. eat your veggies and be nice.

  947. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:12 pm 947.The REAL Messenger said …

    “937.The messenger said …
    “Attention, ALL OF YOU.
    All of the laws that GOD wants us to follow stand on two laws.”

    Don’t listen to him… he is a FALSE prophet! I have actually BEEN to heaven and spoken with God personally and he TOLD me he is completely imaginary.
    So, there you have it, straight from the source. God doesn’t exist.

    T.R.M.

  948. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:14 pm 948.DPK said …

    Thanks TRM… (who is ALSO not me… LOL)… for the great information. You are the best brother. BTW, did god also tell you that eternity actually lasts for eternity?

  949. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:30 pm 949.alex said …

    hor, you’re a pathetic piece of shit. you got nothing, so you resort to this?

    and you’re not very bright. you think you’re fooling anybody?

    this shit driving you crazy? http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  950. on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:12 pm 950.RL The Science Guy said …

    “You have been directed several times here to go over to talkorigins(dot)org and check out the paper, complete with credits and references”

    Great!

    Dippity Dew, pick one out you believe to be particularly strong and share with the group. Maybe, as you claim, this will be the ultimate proof we need to determine macro is true!

    OK lets get started….provided you can even get on the field! Lol!!!!

  951. on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:50 pm 951.alex said …

    “Maybe, as you claim, this will be the ultimate proof we need to determine macro is true!”

    oooh, 96 times you’ve tried the “macro” diversion! four more and you’ll hit triple digits, you moron.

    i know, the posts are out of order. that’s because wwgha is moderating your motherfucking ass.

    here’s your scorecard: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    oh, this shit ain’t a lot of trouble. 30 seconds max.

  952. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:28 pm 952.DPK said …

    “Dippity Dew, pick one out you believe to be particularly strong and share with the group.”

    Another obvious example of your complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method. Pretty pathetic for a science guy.
    Tell you what, the paper I referenced stands on it’s own snd in its entirety. If you care to refute it… We are waiting. You asked for evidence and it has been presented.
    Rebut it all, provide credible evidence and your Nobel prize awaits!
    Ready”……. Go!

  953. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:46 pm 953.Anonymous said …

    Horatio:

    the ultimate proof we need to determine macro is true!
    OK lets get started

    It’s time for you to STFU. You got three strikes, didn’t even take a swing, couldn’t talk basics. You see, idiot, YOU need to actually make a comment on science type things to:
    1)Show off that you actually are a “science guy” and
    2)Understand the SM and
    3)Lay the groundwork on the basic science that everyone is happy with.

    You ALWAYS fail the basics and then want to get into advanced science. I understand your dilemma. It’s not an enviable position to have god on your side (out of personal necessity?) and also have an urgent need to physically prove the existence of the god.

    When someone in your congregation wakes up why not call them off the bench and get them into the game. YOUR performance sucks, Horatio.

  954. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 954.RL The Science Guy said …

    “Tell you what, the paper I referenced stands on it’s own snd in its entirety.”

    LoL!!!!! Yes, its so good you don’t even have the stones to post one fact that proves you correct.

    lol!!!!!!

    I have nothing to refute. The oneous is on you who claims macro is true. But alas, these facts you claim prove macro always fall away like Ada and the Freddie mouse fish. I’m giving you a shot….can you make it to the field? No appealing to authority Dippity….you should understand in what you put your faith.

    lol!!!

  955. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:28 pm 955.DPK said …

    The fact that you think the support of a scientific theory rests on any one fact shows your total ignorance of the nature of evidence.
    Tell you what, show us where the evidence presented in the paper is wrong, and revolutionize the world, imbecile!
    You haven’t got the stones to even try. You haven’t read the paper, you don’t understand it. You refuse to accept it because you think it threatens your delusion.
    You run away just like you ran away from demonstrating how your god can possibly be omniscient and omnipotent, which is impossible.
    If you aren’t going to put up then shut up.

  956. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 956.The messenger said …

    937.alex, then why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people?

  957. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:10 am 957.The messenger said …

    951.DPK, you are a pathetic child. You resort to posting under my name in order to help your pathetic cause. You are an idiot.

  958. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:17 am 958.The messenger said …

    943.alex, that evidence is in so many different cultures having rules that are somewhat similar to the golden rule. is it coincidence, or did the first humans have the golden rule, and it spread across many of their descendants cultures?

    P.S., the bible contains many other rules that other ancient cultures did not have.

  959. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:22 am 959.The messenger said …

    939.Angus and Alexis, GOD created you and your family. So, yes you should love GOD more than your family. I we love GOD then we will love others as he commanded. It is a cycle of love. Love GOD and love your family.

  960. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:29 am 960.Anonymous said …

    the mess

    why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people?

    For the same reason religious leaders and theocracies kill so many: Some sort of god knew of the mass killing actions before they occurred, didn’t act to stop them, and wants to be unconditionally loved despite his indifference.

  961. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:39 am 961.alex said …

    “alex, then why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people?”

    don’t know, bitch. why do so many Sea Turtle non-believers kill millions of people? do you know?

    is it because these Sea Turtle non-believers do not have the Moral Code?

    See how stupid you are, you dumb motherfucker?

    once again, the Book of Messenger: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  962. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 962.alex said …

    “the bible contains many other rules that other ancient cultures did not have.”

    who cares, bitch? presenting the bible as evidence for your stupid god, again?

    how’s that any different than somebody presenting the book of yeti as evidence for bigfoot?

    of course, you wouldn’t understand the question, you dumb motherfucker.

    once again, the Book of Messenger: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    archives, don’t lie, you dumbfuck.

  963. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:44 am 963.RL The Science Guy said …

    “You haven’t got the stones to even try. You haven’t read the paper, you don’t understand it. You refuse to accept it because you think it threatens your delusion.”

    I read the proofs in the past..Its not new Dippity. I took multiple biology classes in college. Facts are not the problem. The interpretations are not supportable.

    ROTFL!!; You don’t even understand what you believe silly. When you do feel free to come and sell it.

    YOU are the one afraid to read anything that criticizes macro. You never have and you never will. As a drone, you must believe what you are told. Critical thinking not allowed.

  964. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:48 am 964.RL The Science Guy said …

    “why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people??

    Mess, from their view why not? Its just survival of the fittest and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. That’s the world of the atheist.

  965. on 28 Mar 2014 at 1:15 am 965.alex said …

    “Mess, from their view why not?”

    from a taoist view point, why do non-taoists kill millions of people? dumbass.

  966. on 28 Mar 2014 at 4:51 pm 966.DPK said …

    “I read the proofs in the past..Its not new Dippity. I took multiple biology classes in college. Facts are not the problem. The interpretations are not supportable.”

    Really? Well, we await your point by point rebuttal. Go for it. With one paper you could completely revolutionize science. This should be awesome.
    Don’t forget to include your alternate explanation of the observable evidence, your predictions, and your evidence to support your alternate theory.

    While you’re at it, are you going to attempt any other explanation for your god’s omniscience/omnipotence paradox besides your crash and burn “Bill and Ted” example?

    What’s that? Crickets??? hahahaha.. thought so, more farts in the wind from the big mouth, no substance Asstrophysicist.

  967. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:25 pm 967.RL The Science Guy said …

    “Well, we await your point by point rebuttal. Go for it”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!, silly Dippity Dew. Rebuttals are only needed when evidence that supports conclusions are presented. You don’t even understand the arguments.
    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    “Don’t forget to include your alternate explanation of the observable evidence,”

    ROTfL!!!!!!!!!!Sure, I will present a serious of books you will need to read and provide chapter by chapter rebuttals. Just following your lead :)

    “While you’re at it, are you going to attempt any other explanation for your god’s omniscience/omnipotence paradox”

    Been done by me and RL. (I know I know you insist he is me, whatever!). Lol!!!!!

    To summarize Dippity Dew: He doesn’t understand what he believes so he needs the smarter people to make his arguments.

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  968. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:40 pm 968.alex said …

    “Rebuttals are only needed when evidence that supports conclusions are presented. You don’t even understand the arguments.”

    rebut this, motherfucker. dated fossils predates your bullshit, biblical 10,000 year old earth and it’s not even close.

    remember severin? he would probably say “your god is very shit?”

    severin, where you at? check this hor-shit: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

  969. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:40 pm 969.DPK said …

    As I thought… you’ve got nothing. LOL

    No surprise there…..

  970. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:50 pm 970.alex said …

    “Been done by me and RL. (I know I know you insist he is me, whatever!). Lol!!!!!”

    it is you, you lyin motherfucker. you posted as “RL” and you wrote: (http://goo.gl/MnuzWU)

    “RL, If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)”

    why do you insist on lyin? all it does is confirm what a lying bitch motherfucker you truly are. same shit you did with martin.

    either way, your explanation for god’s omniscience/omnipotence paradox is ridiculous.

    “God’s foreknowledge of the future is very much like a time machine….”

    really? comparing god to a nonsensical time machine? why not a unicorn? or a wrestling angel? wait?….

  971. on 28 Mar 2014 at 7:48 pm 971.Anonymous said …

    DPK asks:

    “While you’re at it, are you going to attempt any other explanation for your god’s omniscience/omnipotence paradox”

    Then, WHILE posting as user RL, sweetie pie/little “a”/Horatio bleats:

    Been done by me and RL.

    Strange? Maybe not in the mind of someone as addled as Horatio. What a complete and utter mess of an individual. Too many drugs? Too much alcohol? Who knows, he’s on the 12 steps to sobriety program just now…..maybe relapsed?

  972. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:06 pm 972.RL The Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Anonymous, aka Freddie accusing others of multiple handles.

    That is classic!!!!

    Yes, I have been all RL posts other than the original post. I make it obvious unlike Mousey who lies about it. :). Luv ya Freddie mouse…

    And yes my college and military days saw too much alcohol but virtually no drugs. But unlike Freddie mouse I have been clean for multiple decades.

    Since they cannot defend their claims the atheists are more interested in soap operas. Lol!!!!!

  973. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:47 pm 973.Anonymous said …

    Horatio:

    That is classic!!!!
    Yes, I have been all RL posts other than the original post.

    Posting as user RL Wooten, (AFTER the original post) these two gems came out in succession from TWO SEPARATE ENTRIES:

    #1
    RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :).
    lol!!!

    #2
    RL, If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)

    Classic, indeed!!!! What an addled mind. What a complete mess. Totally discredited. Horatio, people aren’t necessarily as stupid as you are.

  974. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:55 pm 974.Anonymous said …

    Horatio, in the original, RL Wooten posting:

    I’ll use a scene in the time travel movie Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (this is my favorite time travel movie!). …………

    No wonder you don’t want any association with the original RL Wooten post. Very embarrassing. Too bad for you that you’re busted. Now the real lack of character and integrity of your position is painfully exposed. LOL!!!! ROTFL!!!!! Oh, and ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

  975. on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:09 pm 975.RL The Science Guy said …

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Oh, Freddie Mouse you are so cute. Who is Horatio? Is that suppose to be me too? Like Horatio Hornblower? lol!!!!!!!

    Oh this is so classic. Freedie mouse is busted posting under his to handles and he lashes out at others. But is as well known, weak minds that cannot discuss ideas prefer to discuss people.

    Freddie Mouse! Did you hear alex like likes Dippity dew?

    lol!!!!!!!!

    Oh, I must come clean. I have never seen a Bill and Ted movie but it seems Freddie mouse has….:)

    lol!!!!!!!!

  976. on 28 Mar 2014 at 10:09 pm 976.Anonymous said …

    Nice try, Horatio.

    Again, you’ve completely failed to explain how you posted as user RL WOOTEN (after the original post) and twice wrote:

    #1
    RL,
    Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :).
    lol!!!

    #2
    RL,
    If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)

    Did you get that? YOU were posting as RL WOOTEN and addressing RL WOOTEN in two SEPARATE entries. What a complete moron you are when you forget to change the id before you post your entry. NOBODY here (maybe with the exception of “the messenger”) is as STUPID as you are. LOL!!!! ROTFL!!!! Oh, and ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! What a pathetic loser. What a complete mess.

  977. on 28 Mar 2014 at 10:53 pm 977.RL The Science Guy said …

    “Again, you’ve completely failed to explain how you posted as user RL WOOTEN”

    I typed his name in the block. You should know how that works Freddie….lol!!!!! Duh!

    “YOU were posting as RL WOOTEN and addressing RL WOOTEN”

    Yes, I know. Duh! Lol!!!!!!

    Pssst! That because I used his name. ssshhhhh….

    Talk about the ultimate in ignorance!!!! Lol!!!!! How much more obvious could I make it without writing in the sky for you Freddie mouse?

    Hey, if I am to be accused why not play along. Lol!!!!!!So gullible Freddie mouse.

    Now if RL Wooten DOES come back, I will not used his handle out of courtesy.

    But hey, I don’t care if you believe I am everyone on the blog. When I post under another name…..I make it VERY obvious for the one with average
    intelligence……..Freddie mouse.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!! Its like a bunch of Jr High lids…..lol!!!!!!!

  978. on 28 Mar 2014 at 11:13 pm 978.Anonymous said …

    Horatio; the dance continues:

    Now if RL Wooten DOES come back, I will not used his handle out of courtesy.

    How will anybody be able to distinguish between the identical levels of stupidity? What a mess you are. Tired? Drunk? Both? Maybe stop with the late night drinking?
    LOL!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!! Oh, yeah, and ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

  979. on 28 Mar 2014 at 11:39 pm 979.The messenger said …

    965.alex, judging from your idiotic comments I have concluded that you are not paying any attention to this debate.

    I bid you farewell, my absent minded buffoon of a brother. I will not respond to any of your comments until you display some form of logic.

  980. on 29 Mar 2014 at 2:48 pm 980.alex said …

    “alex, judging from your idiotic comments I have concluded that you are not paying any attention to this debate.”

    I’m guessing, you’re struggling with my style?

    In Post#962, you wrote “..why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people?” and Mister Hor posted his support.

    If you expect atheists to accept this then you must also accept the same if another religion presents the same argument.

    Would you accept it if a Taoist argued:
    “..why do so many atheist and non-Taoist leaders kill millions of people?”.

    If every religion argued the same, then you would expect all atheists to believe in all religions? Is that what you’re saying?

    do you see why you’re a dumbass, sheep herder, motherfucker? here’s your entire shit collection: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  981. on 29 Mar 2014 at 3:04 pm 981.alex said …

    “I will not respond to any of your comments until you display some form of logic.”

    you posted:

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    asked any 6th grader about the validity of this cerebral statement. and they’d respond with?

    you are not qualified to discern logic, you dumbass, motherfucker. go tend your sheep.

  982. on 29 Mar 2014 at 7:59 pm 982.DPK said …

    “Now if RL Wooten DOES come back, I will not used his handle out of courtesy.”

    I love watching you squirm and lie in order to try and save yourself embarrassment… what you don’t realize is that you aren’t fooling anyone and you look like the worm you are for trying to lie your way out of it.
    Let’s review:
    After months and months of you being unable to provide any logical explanation as to how your imaginary god could possibly be both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time, and being hammered on it repeatedly, you decide to create persona R.L. and float an “explanation” lifted directly from the website of W.L.Craig.
    You do this so that you can avoid having to defend Lane’s ridiculous and completely fallacious reasoning because you know it is bullshit. But, you have no other explanation to offer, so you pretend to be someone else.
    Then, you reply to R.L.’s post in your typical “A” obnoxious style, warning R.L. that he will be accused of being just a sock puppet for you, but, oh the irony, you forget to change your name field and accidentally respond while still under the “R.L.Whooten” moniker!
    “RL, Should have warned you. You will be me. The atheist insist I am every theist on the blog. I accept the mantle but they continue to whine as a diversion :). lol!!!”
    Then, realizing you have been outed, once again, as a fraud and a liar, you attempt to convince everyone that you meant to do that, but once again forget and post as R.L…
    “RL,
    If you do return, my apologies. Just attempting to calm the atheists. Crickies! They are easily ruffled little boogers they are…..:)”

    Then, busted for sock posting for what, the 5th time… and unable to defend the stupid time machine explanation for your god’s properties, you once again abandon that and try to steer the topic back to evolution. You once again demand evidence for what you mistakenly refer to as “macro” evolution. When you are provided that evidence and are asked to rebut it, you try to dismiss it without explanation.

    Then, in an effort to change the subject again you proclaim:
    “But is as well known, weak minds that cannot discuss ideas prefer to discuss people…”

    and then, in an display of irony really hard to believe, continues:

    “Freddie Mouse! Did you hear alex like likes Dippity dew? ROTFL!!!!!!!! Its like a bunch of Jr High lids…..lol!!!!!!!”

    Seriously, no one could possibly make this shit up! It’s just toooo good!
    LOL!

  983. on 31 Mar 2014 at 2:17 pm 983.freddies_dead said …

    981. A the lying prick posting as RL The Science Guy said …

    When I post under another name…..I make it VERY obvious for the one with average
    intelligence……..Freddie mouse.

    Yeeeeeaaaah no.

    When you dishonestly post under another name it’s obvious because you’re not just a lying prick, you’re an incredibly stupid lying prick.

  984. on 31 Mar 2014 at 7:28 pm 984.Science Guy said …

    “When you dishonestly post under another name”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Yes, I have used a couple of diff handles. But alas, none of them are honest. None of the handles ate my real name.

    lol!!!!!!!

    So do they call you Mr Dead? Freddie? Or just Mouse? Be honest now……don’t make up fake names silly boy! lol!!!!!!!!

    Wow! This is too funny! A bunch of boys obsessed over names.

    “Breaking Story”. I am now Science Guy. :)

  985. on 31 Mar 2014 at 10:00 pm 985.alex said …

    “Wow! This is too funny! A bunch of boys obsessed over names.”

    a lame attempt to water down your obvious fakery, i.e., martin! congrats! it’s me, martin!

    what a dumb motherfucker you are. your attempt as “RL” is an obvious attempt to mislead.

    obsessed with names? wrong, motherfucker. we point out bullshit and you’ve been outed many times as the lying piece of shit you are.

    it’s the same old tired shit. atheists obsessed over a god, atheists obsessed over gays, atheists obsessed over the mistreatment of women, atheists obsessed over secular religion, atheists obsessed over creationism, and on.. and on… and on.

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  986. on 31 Mar 2014 at 10:54 pm 986.Anonymous said …

    Horatio:

    “Breaking Story”. I am now Science Guy. :)

    So, it looks like little “a”/sweetness/RL Wooten has “micro-evolved”, again!!! Don’t blame them- Who would want to be associated with the written buffoonery that has been and continues to be “The World According to Horatio”. Yes, Horatio’s MO and fingerprints are all over whatever you write. Always afraid to make comment on the most basic grade school science and full of LOL!!!!! and ROTFL!!!!!!! Don’t worry; everyone completely understands that you bring nothing to the table……Well almost nothing except for faith and ignorance.

  987. on 01 Apr 2014 at 10:31 am 987.freddies_dead said …

    988.A the lying prick posting as Science Guy said …

    “When you dishonestly post under another name”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! Yes, I have used a couple of diff handles. But alas, none of them are honest. None of the handles ate my real name.

    Of course it’s not the use of an “internet handle” itself that is dishonest. After all it’s pretty much a tradition to operate in such a pseudo-anonymous way on the internet. No, it’s the creation of different handles to deliberately mislead people about the source of a post which makes you a lying prick. The invention of sock puppets that you then use to pat yourself on the back when you’ve said something especially stupid.

    lol!!!!!!!

    So do they call you Mr Dead? Freddie? Or just Mouse? Be honest now……don’t make up fake names silly boy! lol!!!!!!!!

    Different people call me different things i.e. my wife calls me ‘Jon’ (a shortening of my given name). My daughters call me ‘Dad’. On a sports forum that I frequent they call me ‘Nods’ (for reasons which would probably make little sense were I to present them here).

    However, I’ve never used any of those names to try and mislead people into thinking they’re dealing with someone other than me. You, on the other hand, have made a habit of creating fake identities for just that purpose. It’s what makes you a lying prick.

    Wow! This is too funny! A bunch of boys obsessed over names.

    “Breaking Story”. I am now Science Guy. :)

    I don’t care about the names. You could call yourself something new every time you posted if you wanted to.

    No, it’s the dishonesty that matters to me. The fact that you do it specifically to mislead. That’s why I keep pointing out that you’re a lying prick.

  988. on 01 Apr 2014 at 12:26 pm 988.Science Guy said …

    “However, I’ve never used any of those names to try and mislead people into thinking they’re dealing with someone other than me”

    Well, Johnny Nods, that because you are obsessive compulsive. Get help with your obsession.

    Not to mention you are a hypocrite and a liar as you post back to back attempting to be two different posters. Don’t lie Johnny!!! YOU HAVE BEEN BUSTED USING BOTH HANDLES IN THE PAST!!

    lol!!!!! Along with other atheists in the past.

    I on the other hand have always made my idenity obvious. But Johnny Nods, did you hear Dippity Dew like likes Angus? Lol!!!!!

    But Johnny………regardless of the handle……..I am the same wonderful guy! I son”t care what handle you use Nods. Your beliefs are weak, silly and ridiculous regardless of the handle :) That’s what counts.

    Luv ya Johnny Nods!!!

  989. on 01 Apr 2014 at 1:42 pm 989.alex said …

    “Well, Johnny Nods, that because you are obsessive compulsive.”

    wrong. add the word ‘obsess’ to your standard, moronic vomit. search the book of hor: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    and you’ll find 23 instances of the word. in the same book, you’ll find the numerous aliases you’ve used in the past. contextually, it’s obvious that your intent is to mislead, you lying piece of shit.

  990. on 01 Apr 2014 at 3:45 pm 990.freddies_dead said …

    992.A the lying prick posting as Science Guy said …

    “However, I’ve never used any of those names to try and mislead people into thinking they’re dealing with someone other than me”

    Well, Johnny Nods, that because you are obsessive compulsive. Get help with your obsession.

    Wait … what? It’s obsessive compulsive to be honest now? And you want me to get help for being honest? I suppose that when when you live your life lying for Jesus like you do then honesty would look weird to you.

    Not to mention you are a hypocrite and a liar as you post back to back attempting to be two different posters.

    Nope. I have never claimed to be “Anonymous”. There were 2 posts on another thread which I’d posted from a different computer to my usual one which defaulted to anonymous but I was quite happy to point them out as mine. You simply keep lying even when you’ve patted yourself on the back using the same username you’re congratulating.

    Don’t lie Johnny!!! YOU HAVE BEEN BUSTED USING BOTH HANDLES IN THE PAST!!

    “BUSTED”? Oh you child. There was no busting as I hadn’t tried to deceive anyone. I even trawled through the thread to note my other post which had posted using the default username.

    lol!!!!! Along with other atheists in the past.

    Which ones? And what evidence do you have to prove they’ve done the same as you? Do you have them using the fake identity to congratulate the fake identity like we have you doing?

    I on the other hand have always made my idenity obvious.

    It’s only obvious because you’re so stupid that you forget to change back to your usual name after dishonestly posting as one of your sock puppets.

    But Johnny Nods, did you hear Dippity Dew like likes Angus? Lol!!!!!

    Which has what to do with your dishonesty?

    But Johnny………regardless of the handle……..I am the same wonderful guy!

    You’re definitely a stupid lying prick whichever handle you’re posting as.

    I son”t care what handle you use Nods. Your beliefs are weak, silly and ridiculous regardless of the handle :) That’s what counts.

    Luv ya Johnny Nods!!!

    If only you could actually provide evidence to back up your claims here. You’re welcome to try any time you feel up to it.

  991. on 01 Apr 2014 at 5:21 pm 991.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    OOOPS, my dishonesty….changing my handle.

    “Nope. I have never claimed to be “Anonymous”.”

    Which is why you are a liar Johnny.

    “Which ones? And what evidence do you have to prove they’ve done the same as you”

    Evidence? You wouldn’t know anything about that. Lol!!!!! Ah, we have you for one :).

    “Wait … what? It’s obsessive compulsive to be honest now?”

    Honest? Lol!!!!!! No Johnny, obsessing over the handles of bloggers is OC. You and Alex have fun with that.

    Let us know when you will offer up proof for macro, the standards of morality or any of the other many holes in your worldview Johnny.

    lol!!! Oh the childishness……

  992. on 01 Apr 2014 at 6:10 pm 992.alex said …

    “No Johnny, obsessing over the handles of bloggers is OC.”

    wrong again. pointing out your bullshit is commonplace and it’s not obsession. you calling it that is lame and very predictable since you got nothing else.

    “Let us know when you will offer up proof for macro…”

    back to the same old crap ain’t you? nothing from you so you try the same old tired diversion. macro is shit, you happy? now, your god proof? chirp?

  993. on 01 Apr 2014 at 6:48 pm 993.alex said …

    “OOOPS, my dishonesty….changing my handle.”

    added your new lyin ass name to your shitlist: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    it’s not that hard. your lying ass for all to see.

  994. on 02 Apr 2014 at 2:06 am 994.alex said …

    stupidly, hilarious posting by Sweetness after posting as “RL”. it totally explains hor’s steadfast belief in the ridiculous god.

    “That is an illustration that I hope will convey to you this idea that we have the power to do X or not-X”

    RL, when you start breaking down terms like “Theological Fatalism” you will completely lose this crowd. Lol!!!

    I broke it down for them in very elementary terms and they could not follow. Really one needs to have a very basic understanding about the attributes of God in order to follow the argument.

    seriously, it’s here: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS
    search for posting 871.

  995. on 02 Apr 2014 at 3:19 am 995.The messenger said …

    964.alex, murder and hate(towards other people) are not allowed or supported by GOD.

    Anyone who murders or hates anyone has no connection to Jesus whatsoever. If they regret doing those things and try their hardest to stop, then their connection to GOD is restored.

    Atheists do not follow GOD, and therefore do not follow the anti murder and anti hate laws and teachings of GOD.

    If you want to learn about atheist and their so-called morality, research stalin, karl marx, fadel castro, hitler, or mussilini.

  996. on 02 Apr 2014 at 4:05 am 996.The messenger said …

    Anyone that has hate or physical violence towards others in Jesus’s name has no connection to Jesus(aka GOD) whatsoever.

  997. on 02 Apr 2014 at 11:01 am 997.alex said …

    “Anyone who murders or hates anyone has no connection to Jesus whatsoever.”

    and the same motherfucker says:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    and

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”

    where is your credibility? your pile of shit, including your latest vomit: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  998. on 02 Apr 2014 at 11:24 am 998.alex said …

    readers.

    why the xtian god? other religions offer basically the same shits, don’t they? here’s my top two (2):

    1. xtianity offers redemption from any fucking bads you commit. no matter what you do, let hesus into your heart and viola, you’re clean. that’s why motherfuckers like messenger, loves hesus.

    2. eternal life in heaven (virgins et all). and bonusly, heathens and atheists go to the other place.

    that’s it! xtians take the bible and interpret it anyway they want. they rationalize that everything they do is in compliance. then they righteously proclaim the above. that’s why there are so many xtian denominations. everybody, especially the dipshit messenger, thinks they are the sole interpreter.

    without the reasons above, why would anyone believe in the xtian god? remember, other religions offer basically the same thing, some with less hate.

  999. on 02 Apr 2014 at 5:58 pm 999.The messenger said …

    1002.alex, other religions support hate and violence, such as Islam. Judaism and Christianity teach against hating others.

    I never claimed to be the sole interpreter of anything. please use your brain, brother.

  1000. on 02 Apr 2014 at 6:17 pm 1000.alex said …

    “I never claimed to be the sole interpreter of anything.”

    you said in post #271:
    “my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic,”

    use your brain, you dumb motherfucker.

    this shit doesn’t lie: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  1001. on 03 Apr 2014 at 1:21 am 1001.The messenger said …

    1004.alex, I am not the person that came up with this interpretation. I am also not the only christian to follow this interpretation.

  1002. on 03 Apr 2014 at 2:03 am 1002.alex said …

    “I am not the person that came up with this interpretation. I am also not the only christian to follow this interpretation.”

    that’s why you’re dumbass, self professed/appointed, xtian interpreter. didn’t you post:

    “I am simply preaching about the path to overcoming evil and how true Christians try to follow the path,”

    you didn’t come up with any interpretation, but you righteously proclaim the phrase “my interpretation”?

    in your shitpile collection at: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO,
    you repeatedly mentioned your definition of what a “true christian” is and yet you can’t produce an xtian checklist corroborating your criteria.

    that’s why you’re dumbass, lyin, motherfucker.

  1003. on 03 Apr 2014 at 2:18 am 1003.alex said …

    “and yet you can’t produce an xtian checklist corroborating your criteria.”

    and predictably, messenger will cherry pick the bible and righteously trot out a few verses. when confronted with contradictory ones, moron will proclaim that the latter is not to be taken literal.

    dumbass, self professed/appointed, xtian interpreter title goes to the messenger goat herder.

  1004. on 03 Apr 2014 at 9:24 am 1004.freddies_dead said …

    995.A the lying prick posting as The Prickly Science Guy said …

    OOOPS, my dishonesty….changing my handle.

    And once more you dishonestly try to twist what’s been said … because you’re a lying prick.

    “Nope. I have never claimed to be “Anonymous”.”

    Which is why you are a liar Johnny.

    Except you have no evidence to backup your baseless claim that I’ve deliberately posted as someone else in an attempt to mislead people. If you did you’d have presented it.

    Anyone interested can pop over to the “The insanity of Christianity: Prayer edition” thread and check out the first couple of paragraphs of post 1090 to see exactly what happened.

    “Which ones? And what evidence do you have to prove they’ve done the same as you”

    Evidence? You wouldn’t know anything about that. Lol!!!!! Ah, we have you for one :).

    Thank you for your admission that you have no evidence.

    “Wait … what? It’s obsessive compulsive to be honest now?”

    Honest? Lol!!!!!! No Johnny, obsessing over the handles of bloggers is OC. You and Alex have fun with that.

    Your gibberish about OC was a direct response to me stating I’d never used any moniker I have to pretend to be someone other than myself i.e. my statement of a commitment to basic honesty. If you meant it to refer to something else you should try learning to write for comprehension.

    Also there’s no obsession here. We’re just pointing out that you like to lie about being someone else in order to try and prop up your baseless assertions or to pat yourself on the back when you’ve said something especially stupid.

    Let us know when you will offer up proof for macro,

    Already done. You refused to “wade through” the evidence.

    the standards of morality or any of the other many holes in your worldview Johnny.

    You’ve yet to show any holes in my worldview A. In fact I don’t recall you backing up a single assertion you’ve made with actual evidence let alone showing anyone else to be wrong about anything.

    lol!!! Oh the childishness……

    Well maybe if you grew up and started acting like an adult…

  1005. on 03 Apr 2014 at 8:00 pm 1005.The messenger said …

    1006.alex, the phrase, ” my interpretation “, simply means that I support and live by that interpretation.

    You need help, my brother.

  1006. on 03 Apr 2014 at 8:04 pm 1006.The messenger said …

    1007.alex, I do not cherry pick. I recognize the entire bible.

    You are the one that cherry picks.

    You cherry pick stoning verses and say that they are literal, but then you ignore the verses that prove that they are metaphorical.

    You are a hypocrite.

  1007. on 03 Apr 2014 at 9:30 pm 1007.alex said …

    “the phrase, ” my interpretation “, simply means that I support and live by that interpretation.”

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, motherfucker. if that’s what you meant, say it. you did say “simply”.

    “You are the one that cherry picks.”

    you dumb motherfucker. it’s your damn bible, the so called word of god. everything in it is supposed to be divine. how in the fuck can it be cherry picked, you dumbass. if it was so damn divinely clear, why can’t all xtians agree on a single intepretation/denomination?

    you keep applying the phrase “true christian”. are you god’s self professed/appointed interpreter? no? then where is the “true christian” criteria checklist? in your head? like your vision of god?

    dumbass, motherfucker. it’s all here: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  1008. on 03 Apr 2014 at 9:59 pm 1008.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Messenger,

    Isn’t Alex such a joy? His love for mankind is inspiring. Everyone should hold him as an inspiration for all! Alex is what is right in the world

    Luv ya Alex. :)

  1009. on 03 Apr 2014 at 10:16 pm 1009.alex said …

    “Isn’t Alex such a joy? His love for mankind is inspiring”

    wrong again as usual. who said i was trying to bring joy? who said i was trying to inspire mankind?

    your latest diversion is lame. you got nothing. 914 posts counted at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, and still you got nothing for your god.

  1010. on 03 Apr 2014 at 10:45 pm 1010.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “who said i was trying to inspire mankind?”

    Oh alex, but you do! You are a silver tongue rascal…you are! That’s why I luv ya babe!

    Your flowery language and the books you like to keep are an inspiration to all mankind. We need more like you bro.

    Keep up the good work! Luv ya Alex! :)

  1011. on 03 Apr 2014 at 10:54 pm 1011.alex said …

    “the books you like to keep are an inspiration to all mankind.”

    and i can always count on you to provide the content. thanks, you dumb motherfucker. you ain’t figured it out yet? dude, we have computers! your book at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS, is self populated by you. your fake names ain’t fooling anybody.

    you call the book an inspiration? feel free to take the content and publish it. it’s legit. even included the original wwgha links.

  1012. on 03 Apr 2014 at 11:35 pm 1012.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Oh Alex!! You have such a way with words. You have fun with your book. You deserve it. Luv ya babe! Mean it! :)

  1013. on 04 Apr 2014 at 12:30 am 1013.The messenger said …

    1011.alex, you have no brain, do you?

    First you accuse me of cherry picking from the bible, then you question wheather or not it can be cherry picked.

    You are a mad man.

  1014. on 04 Apr 2014 at 12:32 am 1014.The messenger said …

    1012.The Prickly Science Guy, good use of sarcasm, brother.

  1015. on 04 Apr 2014 at 12:47 am 1015.alex said …

    “First you accuse me of cherry picking from the bible, then you question wheather or not it can be cherry picked.”

    fair enough. since, you alone, know which passages are literal or not, doesn’t that make you god’s self appointed interpreter? no? is there a bible addendum that tells you which ones are literal? there ain’t is there? that’s makes you the dumb, motherfucker, self professed/appointed god’s representative.

    “You are a mad man.”

    you mean, like i hear god voices and shit? do i desperately cling to the notion of rapists marrying their victims?

  1016. on 04 Apr 2014 at 12:51 am 1016.alex said …

    “You have fun with your book.”

    magical, ain’t it. you post some shit in here and holiness of holy, it appears in: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    i can’t explain how it happens, but i don’t think goddidit.

    “The Prickly Science Guy, good use of sarcasm, brother.”

    and thank you martin, science guy, biff, xenon, little ‘A’, Sweetness, boz, RL Wooten, and of course Horatio.

    dumbass, motherfuckers.

  1017. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:03 am 1017.alex said …

    “alex, you have no brain, do you?”

    if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry

    who dat say? check http://goo.gl/ib8BHO, messenger’s most dumbass post, featured on top.

    did you figure out how to google “cubit”? whadya think it was? 300 cubits is like 20 miles by 15 miles large that noah constructed?

  1018. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:19 am 1018.The messenger said …

    1019.alex, I AM NOT THE ONLY PRERSON THAT BELIEVE IN THIS INTERPRETATION.

    Would you get that through your thick skull.

  1019. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:22 am 1019.The messenger said …

    1021.alex, cubits are a very old form of measurement, and therefore modern humans do not know exactly how long a cubit is.

  1020. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:28 am 1020.alex said …

    “I AM NOT THE ONLY PRERSON THAT BELIEVE IN THIS INTERPRETATION.”

    caps lock, bitch.

    so, other than your other brother, hor, who else believes in this shit?

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry”

    1st graders don’t count.

    or, were your referring to your other fav fantasy?

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

    you posted: “simply preaching about the path..”

    are you a real preacher? tell us your real name and affiliation. if no, doesn’t that make you a dumbass, motherfucking, self professed god’s representative?

  1021. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:37 am 1021.alex said …

    “cubits are a very old form of measurement, and therefore modern humans do not know exactly how long a cubit is.”

    but, in your delusional mind, you have no problem imagining it to be gargantuan enough to accommodate all of the paired animals. oh, i forget. noah had god’s help, who could have snapped his fingers and bypassed the whole fucking ark shit, but i’m getting sidetracked….

    but of course, talking donkies are not be taken literal. help me, motherfucker. if you’re not the self professed god rep, where is the bible addendum that tells me which passages are real and which are not.

    maybe all the xtian motherfuckers are searching for it?

  1022. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:39 am 1022.alex said …

    “caps lock, bitch.”

    sorry, retract. i deserve it. i should caps, right?

  1023. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:41 am 1023.The messenger said …

    1024.alex, if you add fresh water to a cup of salt water the salt amount is neither increased or decreased. the temperature might chance, but not by a significant amount.

  1024. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:44 am 1024.The messenger said …

    1024.alex, pope Francis also supports the same interpretation that I do. We both agree that all people can go to heaven, catholic or not.

  1025. on 04 Apr 2014 at 1:46 am 1025.The messenger said …

    1025.alex, you stated “but, in your delusional mind, you have no problem imagining it to be gargantuan enough to accommodate all of the paired animals. oh, i forget. noah had god’s help, who could have snapped his fingers and bypassed the whole fucking ark shit, but i’m getting sidetracked….”

    Brother, I have never made a claim, using modern measurements, about how large the ark is. I do not know how many animals were around during that time period.

  1026. on 04 Apr 2014 at 12:02 pm 1026.alex said …

    “pope Francis also supports the same interpretation that I do”

    nice! give him your “gospel according to messenger” at: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    then post his approval here. btw, you’re preacher who? with what church? surely, you have the proper creds to be preaching on this blog.

    what about my creds? none. but i do have this inate ability to detect bullshit. you do too, but you just can’t get past the delicious fantasy of:

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”

  1027. on 04 Apr 2014 at 11:52 pm 1027.The messenger said …

    1030.alex, I do not have to give you any personal information. But I am not a preacher, but I am a catholic.

    I do not have a “delicious” fantasy. I believe that if a man rapes a woman he should have to serve her for the rest of his life(as punishment and redemption for committing that sin).

  1028. on 05 Apr 2014 at 12:59 am 1028.alex said …

    “But I am not a preacher, but I am a catholic.”

    but you love to preach your own interpretations, because in your own words, “I do stay joined with the church and most of it’s interpretations of the bible”.

    doesn’t that makes you a self professed/appointed god interpreter?

    does the pope agree with your notion of, “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage)”?

    no? doesn’t that makes you a self professed/appointed god interpreter?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  1029. on 05 Apr 2014 at 2:15 am 1029.The messenger said …

    1032.alex, many catholics, not just myself, believe in the interpretation that I do. We are catholic because we are a part of the church and we except and try to follow all of the teachings of the catholic interpretation of the bible, except the one that states only people within the church can go to heaven. Me and many catholics(including the current pope) believe that athiests can go to heaven.

  1030. on 05 Apr 2014 at 2:46 pm 1030.alex said …

    “follow all of the teachings of the catholic interpretation of the bible, except the one that states only people within the church can go to heaven.

    oh! so the church says it’s ok to rape and marry the vic? church says hell is temporary? church says allah and yahweh are the same? entire shit here http://goo.gl/ib8BHO, you’ve spewed, the church believes in?

    if you say you’re not the self proclaimed god rep, why don’t you name the church that subscribes to your entire interpretation. no? then, wouldn’t it suspiciously appear that you make up your own shit, just like the rest of the countless xtian motherfuckers everywhere?

    any xtian here believe EVERYTHING that messenger says? to make sure your not fluffing, please state your church affiliation. don’t be afraid, xtian. be righteous, be proud and name your church.

  1031. on 05 Apr 2014 at 3:23 pm 1031.Anonymous said …

    you all are all “FOOLS”

  1032. on 05 Apr 2014 at 3:25 pm 1032.Anonymous said …

    FOOLS>>>>>>FOOLS>>>>>YOU DID NOT PROVE A THING EXCEPT YOU ARE GOING TO “HELL”

  1033. on 05 Apr 2014 at 3:32 pm 1033.alex said …

    YOU DID NOT PROVE A THING EXCEPT YOU ARE GOING TO “HELL”

    hell scares you? what else scares you? don’t shy.

  1034. on 06 Apr 2014 at 12:31 am 1034.The messenger said …

    1034.alex, the catholic church says that rape is evil and wrong, but if a person does commit the sin of rape he must bind himself to that person and serve her for the rest of his life.

  1035. on 06 Apr 2014 at 1:09 am 1035.alex said …

    “if a person does commit the sin of rape he must bind himself to that person and serve her for the rest of his life.”

    you lying bitch, motherfucker. tell me the name of your catholic church that says that. tell me the name of your catholic church that says hell is temporary. tell me the name of your catholic church that says allah and yahweh are the same.

    i will go to the same church, kneel and acknowledge your god. it’s a safe bet, ain’t it? coz you’re fulla shit. again your shitpile: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  1036. on 06 Apr 2014 at 1:42 am 1036.alex said …

    what was that again? cain’t find no catholic church that subscribes to your bullshit interpretations? doesn’t that make you the dumbass, self appointed god rep?

    if you don’t have a church that believes in your shit, what the fuck do you want from the atheists here?

  1037. on 06 Apr 2014 at 3:18 am 1037.The messenger said …

    1039.alex, what do you mean “what catholic church”? the catholic church is a united group that worships GOD. There is only one catholic church.

  1038. on 06 Apr 2014 at 3:25 am 1038.The messenger said …

    1039.alex, the catholic church does not focus on the word for word message of the torah, but the inner moral meaning. The word “marriage” can simply mean the joining of two things, so therefore if a person commits the sin of rape, he must bind himself to her and serve her to redeem himself.

    Any catholic priest will either say that same thing or something similar to that.

  1039. on 06 Apr 2014 at 3:29 am 1039.The messenger said …

    1039.Alex, the subject of hell and how long it lasts is quite different. Some Catholics like myself will say that hell is temporary, but others will say that it lasts forever.

    It all depends on who you ask. Unfortunately that is one thing that some Catholics have a hard time agreeing on.

  1040. on 06 Apr 2014 at 11:35 am 1040.alex said …

    “Any catholic priest will either say that same thing or something similar to that.”

    my apologies and congratulations. the pope has read all your interpretations and agrees with everything you’ve said here: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    includingly, the pope says it’s ok to rape and marry the victim. pope says hell is temporary. pope says allah and yahweh are the same.

    the pope says all these things and the pope agrees to everything messenger says. please publish the motherfucking source where the pope says all these things.

    no? then, you’re making up all this shit. shut the fuck up. go fuck with a baptist or mooslim site.

  1041. on 06 Apr 2014 at 11:03 pm 1041.The messenger said …

    1044.alex, you do not have to cuss in order to get respect or power. I know that you do it to make your self feel empowered, but the truth is it only makes you look like a nincompoop.

    Or perhaps this bad attitude was forged from parental problems. If you need to talk about it please do not be afraid, we all want to help you brother.

  1042. on 07 Apr 2014 at 12:53 am 1042.alex said …

    “we all want to help you brother.”

    with what? with your bullshit, self interpretations from the bullshit bible?

    didya ask the pope if it’s ok to rape and marry the victim? did you ask him if hell is temporary? does the pope say allah and yahweh are the same?

    see how full of shit you are, you dumbass motherfucker? who’s trying to get respect or power? i curse your ass because you deserve contempt, you asshole.

    you want to help me, mister bitch. try educating yourself. start off by googling cubits, dipshit.

    your shitlist: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO
    show it off to your mormon friends.

  1043. on 07 Apr 2014 at 1:15 am 1043.alex said …

    “you do not have to cuss in order to get respect or power.”

    excuse the fuck out of me, but you’re ok with:

    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

    “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”

    “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.”

    and on and on. go fuck yourself.

  1044. on 07 Apr 2014 at 1:23 am 1044.The messenger said …

    1048.alex, your soul is corrupted by evil things such as hate, jealousy, lust, and laziness. I want to help you overcome these problems, but I can’t help you until you stop focusing with hate and actually listen to what I am telling you.

    I ALREADY TOLD YOU, NO CATHOLICS SUPPORT RAPE. RAPE IS A SIN. IT IS EVIL.

  1045. on 07 Apr 2014 at 1:27 am 1045.The messenger said …

    1048.alex, you are afraid to confront you hate(and other evils) because you are afraid to. You can deny it all you want, but I know that you are afraid, and deep down you know it too.

    Do not be afraid my brother, I want to help you, but at the same time you must help your self as well. Open your soul and mind to GOD’s message.

  1046. on 07 Apr 2014 at 2:01 am 1046.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    “alex, you do not have to cuss in order to get respect or power.”

    Messenger actually he does have the need. He is a little man, rejected by society. Cursing at others while hiding behind his computer makes him feel like he has power. Let him have his moment. Yhr poor kid has nothing else.

  1047. on 07 Apr 2014 at 2:45 am 1047.alex said …

    “He is a little man, rejected by society.”

    readers, check http://goo.gl/UYo1uS and see who is the reject. hor is so rejected, he resorts to lying and sock posting.

  1048. on 07 Apr 2014 at 2:51 am 1048.alex said …

    messenger.

    try this. i accept hesus into my heart, he forgives me for all my transgressions and when i die, i look forward to those virgins when i get into heaven. and now, i will campaign to ban gay marriages. afterwards, i will try to get a law passed that will allow rapists to marry their victims in lieue of punishment.

    xtian enough for you motherfuckers? this is all in accordance to your interpretations: http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

    when are we going on a roadtrip to spread the word? them faggots better watch out. while we’re at it, let’s revitalize State Rights so that we can bring back Slavery. it is our right as stated in the bible.

    goddamnit, i’m psyched! the motherfucking spirit is in me. let’s go kill us some atheists, hoss.

    how did i do? xtian enough for your motherfuckers?

  1049. on 07 Apr 2014 at 3:31 am 1049.alex said …

    readers. if you decide to forgo your god delusion, i’m sure the hor motherfucker will warn you.

    you’ll turn into alex. you’ll do volunteer work including anonymously running a non-profit website that helps the poor. and to demonstrate your tolerance, you’d approve secular religion.

    gays would be ok by you and you’ll treat women equally and with respect. and worse of all, you WILL NOT put up with any bullshit.

    you’ve been warned.

  1050. on 09 Apr 2014 at 12:46 am 1050.The messenger said …

    Alex, if you were the one that posted comments 1056 and 1057, you are just corrupt and pathetic.

    Stop the hate, and follow GOD.

  1051. on 09 Apr 2014 at 11:40 am 1051.alex said …

    “if you were the one that posted comments 1056 and 1057, you are just corrupt and pathetic.”

    that’s because god is moderating your comments, you easily, confused idiot.

    learn, motherfucker. do you see “comment is awaiting moderation”? that’s your god’s handiwork, moron.

  1052. on 10 Apr 2014 at 12:29 am 1052.alex said …

    i guess, god tired of these motherfuckers using His name in vain. he’s censoring messenger and hor.

    har!

  1053. on 10 Apr 2014 at 11:29 am 1053.The Prickly Science Guy said …

    Poor Alex, he has no one to curse at and target his hatred at here. He cannot attack the woman here with B***ch because everyone is gone. He can just languish in his own hate and bigotry. It”s easy to be a tough guy behind the screen

    I am shutting down the blog.. Good night.

  1054. on 10 Apr 2014 at 1:35 pm 1054.alex said …

    “I am shutting down the blog..”

    delusional power granted by your skydaddy? wrong again.

    this is what shut you down: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    a.k.a. the book of hor

  1055. on 12 Apr 2014 at 1:11 am 1055.The messenger said …

    1060.alex, you are so lost.

  1056. on 12 Apr 2014 at 2:34 am 1056.alex said …

    “.alex, you are so lost.”

    and what’s a true xtian, you dumb motherfucker?

    why so many denominations? if i was going to be a xtian, i sure as hell aint picking your group. i’d be a motherfucking mormon with multiple women.

    and once again, the proof why you’re such a dipshit:

    http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

  1057. on 13 Apr 2014 at 1:11 am 1057.The messenger said …

    1066.alex, you have no brains, do you.

    YOU ARE CORRUPTED BY HATE.

  1058. on 13 Apr 2014 at 1:42 am 1058.alex said …

    “you have no brains, do you.”

    make up your mind, you dumbfuck.

    toldya, i’m going to be a mormon and gather me some white women. whatzamatter, not xtian enough for you?

    maybe if i raped a virgin and married her, will i be your hero?

    dumbass, motherfucker.

  1059. on 13 Apr 2014 at 1:16 pm 1059.azriel said …

    Such hate from the theists

  1060. on 13 Apr 2014 at 11:11 pm 1060.The messenger said …

    1069.azriel, hate from theists? Are you kidding me?

    Atheists are the hateful ones here. When ever we try to have a logical debate, with alex, he does nothing but cuss and insult us.

    If I had a penny for every insult that alex has thrown at me I would have enough money to my a limo.

  1061. on 13 Apr 2014 at 11:12 pm 1061.The messenger said …

    I ment to type “buy”, not “my”.

    Sorry.

  1062. on 13 Apr 2014 at 11:16 pm 1062.The messenger said …

    1069.azriel, atheist, like your self, misinterpret the intentions of Catholic and Jewish messages.

    When we say that a person is doing something wrong or evil, your mind immediately jumps to the assumption that we hate you. You could not be more wrong. We do not hate you, we simply oppose your actions, and we wish to help you overcome the bad things that you are doing.

  1063. on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:14 am 1063.freddies_dead said …

    1066.The messenger said …

    1069.azriel, atheist, like your self, misinterpret the intentions of Catholic and Jewish messages.

    If we are then it’s no more than you misinterpreting the messages in your holy books. Eternal not meaning forever and stonings being non-literal.

    When we say that a person is doing something wrong or evil, your mind immediately jumps to the assumption that we hate you.

    Nope, it’s the threat of eternal damnation for finite “crimes” against an infinite being that shows theism to be hateful. It’s the horrific assertion that rape victims should marry their attackers that shows theism to be hateful. It’s the vile claim that, as long as your slave lasts more than 3 days before dying, you can beat them to within an inch of their lives that shows theism to be hateful. It’s the claim that loving people who just happen to share a gender should be stoned to death for their love that shows theism to be hateful.

    It’s not you that I brand hateful but your theism most definitely is.

    You could not be more wrong. We do not hate you, we simply oppose your actions, and we wish to help you overcome the bad things that you are doing.

    You should fix your own problems before you accuse others of doing “bad things”.

  1064. on 15 Apr 2014 at 11:57 pm 1064.The messenger said …

    1073.freddies_dead, the people that wrote the new testament were the first Catholics. Believe me, Catholics, such as my self, understand the true interpretations of the bible because it was us that wrote the texts.

  1065. on 16 Apr 2014 at 12:11 am 1065.The messenger said …

    1073.freddies_dead, hell is not a threat. If it was a threat, that would mean we deiced who goes to heaven and who does not. That is not the case at all. We have no say in who goes to heaven or hell, or how long they stay in hell.

    The new covenant it about forgiveness of sins, and following the laws because of our love and faith in GOD, instated of fear of punishment. Yes we should fear hell, but not very much because GOD is extremely forgiving.

  1066. on 16 Apr 2014 at 12:07 pm 1066.freddies_dead said …

    1068.The messenger said …

    1073.freddies_dead, the people that wrote the new testament were the first Catholics.

    So you admit it was Catholics that were responsible for much of the hatefulness, how very generous of you.

    Believe me, Catholics, such as my self, understand the true interpretations of the bible because it was us that wrote the texts.

    Simply being part of the group that claims responsibility for writing the stories doesn’t mean you’re suddenly imbued with the ability to interpret them correctly and it most certainly doesn’t make those stories true.

  1067. on 16 Apr 2014 at 12:19 pm 1067.freddies_dead said …

    1069.The messenger said …

    1073.freddies_dead, hell is not a threat.

    It most decidedly is. The Bible states quite clearly that the reward for failing to follow its commandments is a one way ticket to eternal damnation. That’s a threat, pure and simple.

    If it was a threat, that would mean we deiced who goes to heaven and who does not. That is not the case at all. We have no say in who goes to heaven or hell, or how long they stay in hell.

    That’s a total non-sequitur. No one claimed that the threat of Hell was in any way linked to the human ability to decide who goes there. The fact that you have no direct influence over the final destination of other people has no bearing on the status of Hell as a threat.

    The new covenant it about forgiveness of sins, and following the laws because of our love and faith in GOD, instated of fear of punishment.

    And yet there’s Hell, just waiting for you to fuck up. The giant stick to Heaven’s carrot.

    Yes we should fear hell, but not very much because GOD is extremely forgiving.

    Odd, this contradicts the Bible’s assertion that the vast majority of souls will spend an eternity in Hell for their failure to meet the required level of ass kissing. That’s Matthew 7:13-14 in case you were wondering.

  1068. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:00 am 1068.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, Catholics do not teach hatred of people, but a dislike of certain ideas.

  1069. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:03 am 1069.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, Catholics wee the authors of the new testament books, so doesn’t it make since that we would know the true interpretations of the bible.

  1070. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:08 am 1070.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, catholics believe in the same interpretations of the new testament that the original authors did. They were passed down from generation to generation of catholics, and now they are known by modern catholics such as my self.

  1071. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:19 am 1071.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, you liar, Matthew 7:13-14 simple states that salvation is hard to achieve, it states nothing about hell being eternal.

    Romans 10:13 proves that all people have the ability to go to heaven.

  1072. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:21 am 1072.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, do you think that rapists and murders should go unpunished? GOD punishes them either in this life or in the after life(aka hell). So tell me, how is hell a bad thing? It is a place of punishment for bad people.

  1073. on 17 Apr 2014 at 12:26 am 1073.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, citizens of countries follow the laws for two reasons, either they love their country enough to follow the laws, or they fear prison, or both.

    Hell is the prison that GOD made people that never try to be kind and loving and never try to repent for their immoral decisions.

  1074. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:21 am 1074.freddies_dead said …

    1072.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, Catholics do not teach hatred of people, but a dislike of certain ideas.

    So you don’t follow the Bible then as that surely does preach hatred of people.

  1075. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:22 am 1075.freddies_dead said …

    1073.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, Catholics wee the authors of the new testament books, so doesn’t it make since that we would know the true interpretations of the bible.

    Not really, you’re claiming to know what a person (allegedly imbued with the Holy Spirit) meant when they wrote down edicts from God, in a language that you probably don’t speak, nearly 2000 years ago. All you have is translations of translations of those words and interpretations filtered through hundreds of minds before they reached yours.

  1076. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:22 am 1076.freddies_dead said …

    1074.The messenger said …

    1076.freddies_dead, catholics believe in the same interpretations of the new testament that the original authors did. They were passed down from generation to generation of catholics, and now they are known by modern catholics such as my self.

    As I’ve already noted, the Bible you read today has been edited, translated and interpreted thousands of different ways since it’s inception. How do you know then, that your interpretation – which doesn’t comport with other Catholic interpretations – is the correct one? Have you had this revealed to you by your God? If so, how did you know it was God and not just something you imagined? How can we determine between what you claim to know and what you may have merely imagined?

  1077. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:24 am 1077.freddies_dead said …

    1075.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, you liar, Matthew 7:13-14 simple states that salvation is hard to achieve, it states nothing about hell being eternal.

    You silly little man, Matthew 7:13-14 shows how the majority will go to Hell and the Bible states quite clearly (Matthew 25:41 for instance) that Hell is eternal (“everlasting” in the passage I noted before).

    Now we all know that you claim that when the Bible says something is eternal it doesn’t really mean it but even Jesus made it plain that Hell is eternal, see Mark 9:43-48.

    Romans 10:13 proves that all people have the ability to go to heaven.

    Luke 16:19-26 also shows that your destination is fixed i.e. you cannot go from Heaven to Hell and vice versa.

  1078. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:25 am 1078.freddies_dead said …

    1076.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, do you think that rapists and murders should go unpunished?

    Nope. Unlike you, with your vile idea of forcing the rape victims to marry their attackers, I’d prefer to see them in prison for their crimes.

    GOD punishes them either in this life or in the after life(aka hell).

    God does no such thing as He does not exist.

    So tell me, how is hell a bad thing? It is a place of punishment for bad people.

    No, the concept of Hell is disgusting. A place of infinite torment for finite crimes. It’s also indiscriminate. It doesn’t matter if you’re “good” or “bad”. All that’s important is your belief/trust in a particular version of a particular God i.e. the old chestnut about Hitler repenting before death and enjoying a seat in Heaven whilst his Jewish victims burn for all eternity simply because they failed to accept the divinity of Jesus.

  1079. on 17 Apr 2014 at 11:26 am 1079.freddies_dead said …

    1077.The messenger said …

    1077.freddies_dead, citizens of countries follow the laws for two reasons, either they love their country enough to follow the laws, or they fear prison, or both.

    Hell is the prison that GOD made people that never try to be kind and loving and never try to repent for their immoral decisions.

    You do not believe in the Biblical version of Hell then, as that version shows that it’s irrelevant whether you’re kind and loving and it’s your belief in a certain version of God that counts. The Bible makes it clear that you could be the nicest person on the planet but, should you fail to recognise Jesus as your saviour and repent, you will spend all eternity being tormented for your “sin”.

    It’s a truly disgusting doctrine but fortunately it’s all bullshit.

  1080. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:12 pm 1080.The messenger said …

    1084.freddies_dead, the bible teaches us to love all people in John 13:34-35. It commands us to love the people around us (aka, our neighbors) in Leviticus 19:18 and Matthew 22:36-40. It even commands us to love our enemies and to pray for the people that treat us badly in Matthew 5:43-48.

    Tell me, where does the bible say for us to hate anyone?

    GOD wants us to oppose certain actions, but never hate anyone.

  1081. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:16 pm 1081.The messenger said …

    1085.freddies_dead, the catholic interpretations of the bible are the exact same ones that the authors of the new testament believed in. Those interpretations were passed down from the authors and now are known by modern Catholics.

    Lastly, they are accurate translations from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

  1082. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:25 pm 1082.The messenger said …

    1086.freddies_dead, yes the protestants have interpreted the bible in many different ways, but can you provide a single shred of proof that the catholic interpretation has changed?

  1083. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:45 pm 1083.The messenger said …

    1087.freddies_dead, you liar, Matthew 7:13-14 does state that few people find the path to salvation, but you do not realize that it was speaking about the people during that time period. But revelations 10:13 and 3:20 reveal that if we seek GOD(will be all of us) we will achieve salvation.

  1084. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:46 pm 1084.The messenger said …

    1087.freddies_dead, you liar, Matthew 7:13-14 does state that few people find the path to salvation, but you do not realize that it was speaking about the people during that time period. But revelations 10:13 and 3:20 reveal that if we seek GOD(will be all of us) we will achieve salvation.

    Therefore if we go to hell and later seek GOD, we will go to heaven and leave hell.

  1085. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:51 pm 1085.The messenger said …

    1088.freddies_dead, I think that you have been misunderstanding me, the word marriage does not necessarily mean the rings and brides maid type of marriage. Marriage means the joining of two things, therefore if a person commits the sin of rape he must bind himself to her and serve her for the rest of his life.

  1086. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:54 pm 1086.The messenger said …

    1088.freddies_dead, tell me, what proof do you have that disproves GOD? I have given you lots of proof that GOD exists, yet you still deny his existence.

    You are not skeptic, you are in denial or you are insane, or both.

  1087. on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:58 pm 1087.The messenger said …

    1089.freddies_dead, you are wrong. It does not matter wheather or not you belive in GOD. As long as you follow the following commandments with the best of your ability.“Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; 19 respect your father and your mother; and love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

    This was revealed in Matthew 19:16-19.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply