Search results

truly pathetic

Angry ranting and name calling doesn't make you sound any the wiser. I already said you don't have to accept or understand what any physicists say. But based on just a 4% incompleteness of scientific understanding about what the universe is made up of, you have by some "dark points" of...

You won't be able to successfully bend, twist, contort or interpolate the rules of evidence or statutory law to fit those weird religious prejudices you hold. In the instance you reference as federal rules of civil procedure, documents , ancient or not, falling under the definition of...

As already mentioned, those "questions" which you say you conveniently marked, are versions of some pseudo-science misunderstood assumptions about gravity and dark matter, bludgeoned further by your own particular brand of contorted reasoning. They're not science or physics, nor are they how...

Fictional stories and characters have no other evidence valid and verified as historical fact to back up the claims and personalities they portray. It's what makes them fictional. The old testament is fictional because it has no such valid historical evidence whatsoever, and there has never...

Bollocks. Obviously documents do not counter hearsay just because they are ancient. A 3,000 year Harry Potter is never going to be a historically accurrate record of actual events or people.

...for what, so you can make another random inaccurate accusation like "You quoted my post but haven't disputed any of my points...." again? You're arguing - which is more plausible. The laws of physics or the existence of an imaginary creator God. Are you kidding?

You're arguing - which is more plausible? The laws of physics or the existence of a creator God? Of course you don't have to accept or understand any of the physicists who explain how the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You can of course just make up as much of your...

No you don't even understand hearsay do you. You don't understand how Josephus alleging to have written of supposed Christ 100 years later is hearsay. You don't understand that it doesn't require a fictional figure in the form of Christ to somehow return as you pathetically suggested to...

A magic sky fairy is not equally plausible as a celestial teapot? You sure? At least teapots do exist. ..well, something that asinine has indeed been affirmed and instilled. Instead of calling that something, the Celestial Teapot ,or the Magic Sky Fairy, calling it God instead. The...

Name calling, bitching and moaning and going around in circles like you do, will not alter the fact there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus ever existed

How does that happen? You missed part of what they are actually saying, so I fixed it for you. See if you can fix the other mistake yourself.

Christian apologists on a flagged Wiki page because the neutrality of the article is disputed, are hardly presenting evidence any more than you are. James Dunn needs to validate not whine about some "thoroughly dead thesis" or other , as that does not provide any evidence for a historical...

To you, it obviously L@@KS LIKE I was saying that. Non irrational religious bigots haven't had that problem with comprehension.

Whatever. Be as ridiculous as you will. With no argument, nonsense and denial is all you have. A Wiki web page with no valid historical evidence of Jesus, is not historical evidence of Jesus.

ok, I checked . The only mistakes are yours. Both Hawking and Susskind say quite clearly; ....' looks designed but it ain't.' So what's the deal with this that makes you act like such a jerk all the time jem-judicata?

Do yourself a favor. Don't be such a jerk for once, go back and read what he actually said .

Historians and scholars do not claim Jesus’s historicity; because there is none. Christian historians and scholars do not claim Jesus's historicity; because there is none. Christian apologists whether they otherwise act like historians or scholars, claim Jesus's historicity, even though...

You linked Infidels. Why? It did nothing for your pathetic argument. Were you imagining they had left you some sort of room to make yet another completely delusional remark? Even if there were no evidence to conclude Josephus text is not fraudulent, that does not make the Josephus text...

".....an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design. That is not the answer of modern science. " Clear enough except to the delusional, who pretend Hawkins or Susskind have said otherwise.