Search results

Lol. Now you mention it perhaps you are terrified . Purposely choosing someone to be marooned with only because they would actually profess to worshipping the concept of a cruel dictator over someone who does not, suggests you are at least afraid of something.

You would feel more comfortable with someone who genuinely believed it is good to revere as an invisible sky friend the main character in a set of stories who is a murderous genocidal tyrant who killed himself pretending to be his own son but didn't really so that he could play both good-god...

Still can't impose a religion on anyone, whether it's wrapped up and smoked screened by a ton of hyperbole like that or not. Describing the act of existence and reactions to it as heroic, is simply messing around with language, and depicting every action as a mythical hero-system is just a...

Try reasoning for once instead of just name calling and you might become better informed. Which creator , what creator? Naturalistic or supernatural? The least doubt at the moment is for the existence of another witless response from you brainlessly repeating your question begging question.

I don't have one to enjoy or not enjoy, and furthermore no doubt much to your disappointment, you can't impose one on me.

Isn't it way past the time when you should stop being so thick. What creator? A supernatural invisible made up concept, a natural occurrence , a quantum flux, someone called Odin, a magic sky pixie… ...what creator do you want me to deny?

I hope not, but you are an idiot. I notice how you are avoiding asking a sensible question.

Deny which or what creator a possibility? If you haven't enough common sense to see how badly thought through your badly thought through question is , maybe you should be the one to stfu.

Which creator?

Lol.... not as harmless as first thought, eh. What a goof .

You've only come up with ad hominem and just like those other two unthinking religionists, can't discuss or make any reasonable coherent argument. Please do yourself a favor, be my guest, put me on ignore. It'll probably be your least painful option, opposed to attempting anything rational.

oops.. make that 3 with no argument :p

Just the usual nutty blind believers response then. One that can only manage ad hominem and.. One paranoid reply that has no relevance to what preceded it. Par for the course.

You were discussing if some gospels were a likely source for some more gospels? That's like discussing if Doctor Watson's stories on Sherlock Holmes were from the original source - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Having no concern for faith simply does not correlate with no concern for good or bad. Suggesting otherwise is irrational. Holding irrational and illogical beliefs in something which is supposed to have equipped you with rationality, is what doesn't sound like a good bet. You are gambling...

It makes me shudder when I hear the words -sunday school- to think of all those unfortunate little children being abused for years on end from adults forcing their theoligical perversions upon those innocent minds.

No it isn't the same thing. And he's talking specifically of black holes not "patches of space" "...the expanding cloud of billions of galaxies that we call the big bang may be just one fragment of a much larger universe in which big bangs go off all the time, each one with different values...

You think ignoring the replies you are given and then trolling out your same brainless comments again and again is some form of an adult conversation?

That is just plain pathetic. The day you stop gaumlessly swallowing wholesale what is supposed to be a scientist's quote, but is in fact a bible god bother's personal opinion from some religious website or other , will be the day you might start to comprehend the reality of what's...

You make an eloquent and rational case but in the end, philosophy, the thinking of, and science, the putting of a practical thought to the test, are essentially two different things. Necessarily distinct. I don't deny the two go hand in hand, but they cannot be the same or even especially...