Feed on Posts or Comments 01 July 2016

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.

1,326 Responses to “One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist”

  1. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:33 am 1.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

  2. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:40 am 2.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

  3. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 3.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?

  4. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 4.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

  5. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:33 am 5.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.

  6. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:36 am 6.The messenger said …

    806.DPK, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”–George Washington.

  7. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:54 am 7.The messenger said …

    the bloodiest religion on earth is Islam. The pagan roman and Greek religion can be considered second bloodiest.

  8. on 18 Mar 2014 at 2:10 am 8.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.

  9. on 18 Mar 2014 at 2:14 am 9.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

  10. on 18 Mar 2014 at 3:08 am 10.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.

  11. on 18 Mar 2014 at 9:47 am 11.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.

  12. on 18 Mar 2014 at 11:37 am 12.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.

  13. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:50 pm 13.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.

  14. on 18 Mar 2014 at 1:50 pm 14.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.

  15. on 18 Mar 2014 at 3:40 pm 15.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

  16. on 18 Mar 2014 at 4:03 pm 16.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!!

  17. on 18 Mar 2014 at 4:54 pm 17.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.

  18. on 18 Mar 2014 at 10:32 pm 18.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

  19. on 18 Mar 2014 at 11:24 pm 19.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.

  20. on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:08 am 20.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

  21. on 19 Mar 2014 at 10:24 am 21.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…

  22. on 19 Mar 2014 at 11:15 am 22.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!!!!

  23. on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:08 pm 23.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

  24. on 19 Mar 2014 at 1:26 pm 24.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!

  25. on 19 Mar 2014 at 2:56 pm 25.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?

  26. on 19 Mar 2014 at 4:11 pm 26.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!!!!

  27. on 19 Mar 2014 at 8:08 pm 27.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!

  28. on 19 Mar 2014 at 8:56 pm 28.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! :)

  29. on 19 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 29.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.

  30. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:27 am 30.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.

  31. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:47 am 31.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.

  32. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:05 am 32.The messenger said …

    812.alex, you are so blind to the truth, brother.

  33. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:07 am 33.The messenger said …

    831.Sweetness, great comment, my friend.

    Keep spreading the good word, my friend.

  34. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:10 am 34.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.

  35. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:36 am 35.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!!!!

  36. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:48 am 36.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!!!

  37. on 20 Mar 2014 at 1:52 am 37.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.

  38. on 20 Mar 2014 at 3:36 am 38.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!!!!

  39. on 20 Mar 2014 at 11:50 am 39.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.

  40. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:06 pm 40.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.

  41. on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:18 pm 41.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.

  42. on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:34 pm 42.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.

  43. on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:42 pm 43.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.

  44. on 20 Mar 2014 at 3:23 pm 44.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.

  45. on 20 Mar 2014 at 5:32 pm 45.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.

  46. on 20 Mar 2014 at 5:53 pm 46.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!

  47. on 20 Mar 2014 at 9:27 pm 47.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.

  48. on 20 Mar 2014 at 9:31 pm 48.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!!!

  49. on 20 Mar 2014 at 11:05 pm 49.DPK said …

    More avoidance.
    We understand.
    Bloop bleep blip…. Lives remaining 0.
    Hahaha…..

    Game over sweetheart. You lost!

  50. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:04 am 50.The messenger said …

    852.DPK, you do not have a brain, do you.

  51. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 51.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

  52. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:52 am 52.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.

  53. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:02 am 53.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?

  54. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:03 am 54.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.

  55. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:37 am 55.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. :)

  56. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:46 am 56.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?

  57. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 57.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

  58. on 21 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 58.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……

  59. on 21 Mar 2014 at 12:49 pm 59.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.

  60. on 21 Mar 2014 at 5:31 pm 60.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.

    :)

  61. on 21 Mar 2014 at 7:09 pm 61.Angus and Alexis said …

    Wow…
    When you thought A could not get any lamer…

  62. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:08 am 62.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….

  63. on 22 Mar 2014 at 4:28 am 63.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.

  64. on 22 Mar 2014 at 11:30 am 64.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?

  65. on 22 Mar 2014 at 1:19 pm 65.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

  66. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:20 pm 66.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.

  67. on 22 Mar 2014 at 3:25 pm 67.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.

  68. on 22 Mar 2014 at 8:36 pm 68.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.

  69. on 22 Mar 2014 at 8:48 pm 69.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!

  70. on 22 Mar 2014 at 10:31 pm 70.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.

  71. on 23 Mar 2014 at 5:47 pm 71.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.

  72. on 23 Mar 2014 at 5:55 pm 72.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?

  73. on 23 Mar 2014 at 6:53 pm 73.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

  74. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:04 pm 74.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?

  75. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:29 pm 75.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.

  76. on 23 Mar 2014 at 8:56 pm 76.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?

  77. on 23 Mar 2014 at 9:52 pm 77.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.

  78. on 23 Mar 2014 at 10:59 pm 78.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!

  79. on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:23 pm 79.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.

  80. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:52 am 80.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!!!

  81. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:20 am 81.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.

  82. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 82.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?

  83. on 24 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 83.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

  84. on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:43 am 84.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!

  85. on 24 Mar 2014 at 2:51 am 85.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.

  86. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:10 am 86.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!!!!!

  87. on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:58 am 87.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…..:)

  88. on 24 Mar 2014 at 11:57 am 88.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.

  89. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:01 pm 89.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.

  90. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:04 pm 90.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.

  91. on 24 Mar 2014 at 12:24 pm 91.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.

  92. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:08 pm 92.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!

  93. on 24 Mar 2014 at 4:12 pm 93.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.

  94. on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:31 pm 94.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!!!!!!

  95. on 24 Mar 2014 at 7:39 pm 95.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?

  96. on 24 Mar 2014 at 7:54 pm 96.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

  97. on 24 Mar 2014 at 8:22 pm 97.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!

  98. on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:08 pm 98.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.

  99. on 25 Mar 2014 at 12:05 am 99.The messenger said …

    899.alex, brother, I have shown you proof many times in the past.

  100. on 25 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 100.The messenger said …

    817.freddies_dead, simply denying the validity of my claims does not disprove them. Provide proof to support your claims.

  101. on 25 Mar 2014 at 2:02 am 101.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

  102. on 25 Mar 2014 at 3:04 am 102.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.

  103. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:12 pm 103.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.

  104. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:33 pm 104.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.

  105. on 25 Mar 2014 at 1:55 pm 105.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.

  106. on 25 Mar 2014 at 8:20 pm 106.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.

  107. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 107.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.

  108. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:42 pm 108.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.

  109. on 25 Mar 2014 at 11:44 pm 109.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?

  110. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:36 am 110.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?

  111. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 111.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.

  112. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 112.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.

  113. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:56 am 113.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?

  114. on 26 Mar 2014 at 1:00 am 114.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

  115. on 26 Mar 2014 at 3:05 am 115.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”.

  116. on 26 Mar 2014 at 11:23 am 116.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.

  117. on 26 Mar 2014 at 11:44 am 117.alex said …

    “Who is Horatio? Never even seen anyone by that handle.”

    you sure about that? just as sure about your god?

  118. on 26 Mar 2014 at 12:01 pm 118.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?

  119. on 26 Mar 2014 at 1:21 pm 119.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”

  120. on 26 Mar 2014 at 2:58 pm 120.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.

  121. on 26 Mar 2014 at 4:53 pm 121.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……

  122. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:17 pm 122.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?

  123. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:22 pm 123.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?

  124. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:53 pm 124.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”.

  125. on 26 Mar 2014 at 5:58 pm 125.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?

  126. on 26 Mar 2014 at 10:04 pm 126.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

  127. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:06 am 127.The messenger said …

    Alex, you are so delusional.

    I pity you, brother.

  128. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:10 am 128.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.

  129. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:11 am 129.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.

  130. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:24 am 130.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!!!!!

  131. on 27 Mar 2014 at 1:58 am 131.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.

  132. on 27 Mar 2014 at 2:46 am 132.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 :)

  133. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:14 am 133.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….

  134. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:22 am 134.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.

  135. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:32 am 135.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?

  136. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:42 am 136.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.

  137. on 27 Mar 2014 at 12:23 pm 137.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.

  138. on 27 Mar 2014 at 2:55 pm 138.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.

  139. on 27 Mar 2014 at 3:00 pm 139.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?

  140. on 27 Mar 2014 at 4:36 pm 140.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

  141. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:41 pm 141.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.

  142. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:42 pm 142.R.U. Kiddin said …

    Great job R.U.
    You are so smart.

    DPK

  143. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:43 pm 143.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………..

  144. on 27 Mar 2014 at 5:44 pm 144.DPK said …

    Nevermind, I meant to do that… hahahaha. Yeah, that’s it… I did it on purpose.

  145. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:06 pm 145.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.

  146. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:09 pm 146.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.

  147. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:12 pm 147.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.

  148. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:14 pm 148.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?

  149. on 27 Mar 2014 at 6:30 pm 149.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

  150. on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:12 pm 150.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!!!!

  151. on 27 Mar 2014 at 9:50 pm 151.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.

  152. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:28 pm 152.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!

  153. on 27 Mar 2014 at 10:46 pm 153.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.

  154. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 154.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!!!

  155. on 27 Mar 2014 at 11:28 pm 155.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.

  156. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 156.The messenger said …

    937.alex, then why do so many atheist and pagan leaders kill millions of people?

  157. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:10 am 157.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.

  158. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:17 am 158.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.

  159. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:22 am 159.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.

  160. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:29 am 160.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.

  161. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:39 am 161.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

  162. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:43 am 162.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.

  163. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:44 am 163.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.

  164. on 28 Mar 2014 at 12:48 am 164.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.

  165. on 28 Mar 2014 at 1:15 am 165.alex said …

    “Mess, from their view why not?”

    from a taoist view point, why do non-taoists kill millions of people? dumbass.

  166. on 28 Mar 2014 at 4:51 pm 166.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.

  167. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:25 pm 167.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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  168. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:40 pm 168.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

  169. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:40 pm 169.DPK said …

    As I thought… you’ve got nothing. LOL

    No surprise there…..

  170. on 28 Mar 2014 at 6:50 pm 170.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?….

  171. on 28 Mar 2014 at 7:48 pm 171.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?

  172. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:06 pm 172.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!!!!!

  173. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:47 pm 173.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.

  174. on 28 Mar 2014 at 8:55 pm 174.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!!!!!!!

  175. on 28 Mar 2014 at 9:09 pm 175.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!!!!!!!!

  176. on 28 Mar 2014 at 10:09 pm 176.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.

  177. on 28 Mar 2014 at 10:53 pm 177.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!!!!!!!

  178. on 28 Mar 2014 at 11:13 pm 178.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!!!!!!!!!

  179. on 28 Mar 2014 at 11:39 pm 179.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.

  180. on 29 Mar 2014 at 2:48 pm 180.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

  181. on 29 Mar 2014 at 3:04 pm 181.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.

  182. on 29 Mar 2014 at 7:59 pm 182.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!

  183. on 31 Mar 2014 at 2:17 pm 183.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.

  184. on 31 Mar 2014 at 7:28 pm 184.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. :)

  185. on 31 Mar 2014 at 10:00 pm 185.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.

  186. on 31 Mar 2014 at 10:54 pm 186.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.

  187. on 01 Apr 2014 at 10:31 am 187.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.

  188. on 01 Apr 2014 at 12:26 pm 188.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!!!

  189. on 01 Apr 2014 at 1:42 pm 189.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.

  190. on 01 Apr 2014 at 3:45 pm 190.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.

  191. on 01 Apr 2014 at 5:21 pm 191.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……

  192. on 01 Apr 2014 at 6:10 pm 192.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?

  193. on 01 Apr 2014 at 6:48 pm 193.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.

  194. on 02 Apr 2014 at 2:06 am 194.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.

  195. on 02 Apr 2014 at 3:19 am 195.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.

  196. on 02 Apr 2014 at 4:05 am 196.The messenger said …

    Anyone that has hate or physical violence towards others in Jesus’s name has no connection to Jesus(aka GOD) whatsoever.

  197. on 02 Apr 2014 at 11:01 am 197.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

  198. on 02 Apr 2014 at 11:24 am 198.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.

  199. on 02 Apr 2014 at 5:58 pm 199.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.

  200. on 02 Apr 2014 at 6:17 pm 200.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

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply