Search results

Rcan: >angry? Seems like the one who spits into the face of >eternity, living in his own little bubble and projecting >his ignorance is the angry one. Seems you should check the dictionary for the meaning of the word "angry". Peace and all the best. Out. JB

Rcan: >funny thing is, that the end result does >not bode well for you. Because *you* say so? -- the one who types in circles? How do you know I don't have one of your circular gods of my own? -- I'd be set just like you say you are. LOL >You will be chuckling until you are standing...

Rcan: >A God worthy of respect knows that His followers >speak truth. LOL -- apparently you can't recognize a circular argument even if it flows from your own fingertips. By the above logic, there isn't a single version of 'god' that isn't worthy of respect, and all followers of all...

Rcan: >The critical point is, what makes you think >you know anything? And on top of all the evidence that the prevalent version of "god" isn't an entity worthy of respect, you're the perfect example of most of his followers -- that is a self-righteous, judgemental sad-sack. A God...

Hans: >Even if it's apparent that God isn't moral by your >standards is your stance rational? If one has decent morals -- quite. >Why would a solid logician like yourself condemn >himself to an eternity of misery for the sake of one >brief moment of heroic defiance A: It's not...

Rcan: >Assuming that at the end of life, it is you that will >be standing before God, maybe you will be a little >less smug when He says, "sorry, I don't believe in >you. The stove is over there. Get lost. The critical point of the statement being -- Who would want him as a god...

It does not surprise me how you miss the absolute comedy in your writings. JB

What is this? Comedy night on ET? JB

Hans: >We humans can design computers. While many humans >can understand the most sophisticated computer no >computer can understand any human. This is because the >human is on a higher plane of being than the computer. >Similar is the relationship between God and human. No >one...

Telo: >I don't understand why the ID critics are >so threatened by this. . Stu: >I suggest you don't want to understand...period Yep ... it's like Shoe asking the same answered question over and over and over -- eventually you decide the blindness is intentional. JB

Shoe: >What!? Now why didn't you say that? I did. That's what the word "possible" means. JB

Shoe: >Again, the assumption is that there has to be >a "material, non-supernatural" explanation. >Well, I'll ask it again: "why"? (more willful lies... replace "has to be", with "most likely is") Asked and answered your honor. (over and over). We really should end this here --...

Shoe: >If you'll look into the supernatural research books, you'll >find example after example of well-researched things that >are very, very difficult to explain. Here's one example: Look, for starters it's clear that you and I have very different definitions of "well-researched". I'll...

Shoe: >C'mon don't use the logic stuff to avoid the conclusion. LOL -- that sounds like "Don't confuse me with facts ... my mind is already made up". >Here's what I'm getting at: you always dismiss >every supernatural argument no matter how >straightforward. No, I dismiss every...

Shoe: >But, you see, I brought that up to show >another example where you immediately >dismiss everything as false. Stop with the strawman ... I haven't dismissed any of them as "false" (as proof, note I referenced Reagan's sighting as "possible"). However, due to 100% failure rate...

Shoe, I'm gonna start with your ending and go from there... >And if you can't trust Ronald >Reagan, who can you trust? Oh, you've got to be kidding. You can't get to be President without lying your ASS off (why Ron Paul won't win). You can't stay president without lying your ASS off...

Shoe: >Actually, O ye of little faith :) , if you would have >some trust in humanity, we could get somewhere. Humanity tells the truth, humanity lies. Humanity see's things that are, humanity see's things that aren't. The above is a fact proven beyond reasonable debate. There must be a...

Shoe: >I really find it hard to believe that someone could argue >that it is foolish to think that this is anything other than >just an "accident", esp. when you consider all the >supernatural activity on planet earth. LOL -- a perfect example of how you tend to believe one thing and...

Shoe, Johnny used to have some mildly interesting things to say until he got off on his Jesus fantasy. He's become a major bore since that day. JB

Shoe: >And from there we could, of course, go to Pascal's >Wager, but I'll stop short. Of course you will, 'cause your smart enough to know that that Pascal thingy is a logical abortion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager (see "criticisms" section) JB