₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: At your own arrogant ignorance, obviously.
If that is what you got from this statement - - - >
- - -> Then you need to urgently refund your school fees to your parents, or whoever else you have short-changed by having them pay for your (mis)education.
Your fear is noted: after your catastrophic first attempt, it is quite understandable.
What is quite unbelievable is that this is the sort of village-clown response that you mustered to a post that asked these key questions - - >
So that is the village-clown sort of response you contrived to such lucid questions. And you wish to be taken seriously? I have told you before that your name has fast become synonymous with LB, Mr Troll, and such other unserious and frankly d.aft elements. But no matter, I don't expect you to post based on anyone's opinion of you, least of all mine. I certainly wouldn't.
It is beyond belief that your revert is to ask of me answers to my own posers. My dear, the posers are for you and your ilk. There are reasons why I do not give the posers to religious theists who believe in evolution - clearly, because they hold a belief with which one stroke would nullify the posers - namely, they believe in Intelligent and Purposeful Design. It is therefore useless for me to give such people the posers to answer. It is arrogant nit-wits like you and your co-travelers that should answer the posers. Simple.

Erm, is this what you're whinning about this week? How has it not been addressed?

No, this thread is made of so much win. Op could be full blooded xtian and one would still ponder at the antics of sheeple. She wants him to believe by force, pretend, what?

A lot of the time it's that fear of hell fire motivating them . She might have to spend eternity in heaven pretending to be happy while god roasts her son next door. Awesome

Satan should do reality TV, I'd watch that

Ogbologbo: Would i BE rite in assuming that the OP means The Theory of Evolution By NATURAL SELECTION when he just say the theory of evolution.
There is other theory of evolution, some even b4 darwin (or is it dawkins).
Theory of Evolution by existential forms.

A honest attempt at last to deal with the issue. The op himself having been asked many times just how his 'evolution'
works. Alas all we've gotten is more of his standard dross

Regardless though, this changes little. Hence his fear to defend his 'evolution'

^^^

So, I read that, and all I noted was a really happy bigot spewing nonsense, cowardly and frankly disgraceful opinions, then congratulating himself.

Did you read my for starters? You provided absolutely no evidence to back up your assertion that two men couldn't provide the necessary condition other than 'if you ask me as a father'. Yet you expect to be indulged??

No, I'm clearly not asking for that you clown. You CLEARLY lack judgment, and I think you should be more worried about the fact that your kids will have to be raised by an atrocity like yourself than the homo family next doors business.

So, again, do you have anything better than nonsense like your opinion or the bible to back up your assertion that a homo couple cannot provide a conducive environment for child rearing?

Did mourinho just make a Freudian slip? He meant to say 'should have been a yellow' but ended up with 'should have been a penalty'

Of course correcting himself quickly

Deep Sight: Daft. Address the Posers, Dimwit.

And o: I have since forgone any hope of reading any sense from you: not since you argued that you would not correct your child for stealing because morality is subjective, et all: I hardly read anything you write. You are a quaint and random f.ool, of course.

Ah, but your inability to grasp the simplest of things rears its ugly head again. Like your inability to understand that evolution simply is change over genetations. Simply. And not knowing how a particular leap took does not I'm any way invalidate it. Just as not knowing how a particular disease works doesn't invalidate germ theory. You don't know the germ? Well, it sure as hell isn't a spirit responsible. Prayer won't solve the issue, rolling up your sleeves and searching for the particular germ though will yield more fruit though

But I digress, you fail to note that I did address your posers, here again; Godidit

Now please, address mine own queries if you will


And randomly, it seems you note I have issues with your ridiculously selfish views. Very good

Deep Sight: Now I would conclude that you are just joking about.

My questions are clear for any one who is serious. Either address them in terms of the ToE, or carry on the empty party of clueless whining which has been the only thing offered by all you all-so-enlightened-atheists here.

Nothing more. What is glaring, particularly from your infantile summation, is that you do not even have the capacity to sit down, read and comprehend the issues raised. It's patently beyond you. One good option would be to just leave it alone. Think on that.

PS:

In fact, let me help you do your home work. Read up on answers available in science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/sexual-reproduction-and-the-evolution-of-sex-824

Now, go through these links and extract answers to my posers for me, if you will.

You can start with this, from the first link:



You might want to start by looking at that statement in bold in the above, and wondering where that need comes from, in light of just my first posers alone:



Hmmmm, Einstein?

Godidit

Happy?

Because you use bigger English this stops being Godidit? What are you whining about? I have to deal with your puerile logic, therefore puerile replies. (Tbf, I stopped giving them any proper attention a while back. Special pleading for us the special species. Blanlablavljf. It is nonsense good sir)
What are you even on about with the teo? last I checked, it was very much a work in progress. But perhaps we should abandon that and just conclude; Godidit. Because we're special.

We aren't. This is simply religitard logic rebranded as something else. Tell me why your god designed sexes? As a programmer with abilities to play god, eg the ability to endow a level playing field and 'freewill', I fail to see why I'd put gender in the mix, especially involuntary sort. Methinks the solution to whatever peeve you have is in there. And also, if you will, tell why he bothered to define sexes yet designed such a dangerous, inefficient reproductive system? Or do you choose to acknowledge 'design' that confirms your bias? Really?

Mr Troll: Sometimes I wonder, is it that Deepsight accepts the theory of evolution but also believes that somewhere along the line, God throws in some magic wherever the evolutionary train seemed to have stuck up?

For example, after the first single celled organisms must have evolved and couldn't form into different sexes, God must have done some abracadabra and divided them into different sexes and then withdrew into the background until some other hiccup happens, say when the brain's turn must have come around. Impressive, I must admit.

Intelligent design by a not so perfect Mind...oh wait!

I tire. So confidently spouting nonsense. Described so well by evil brain I will add.

This is one of the more articulate, eloquent 'goddidits' around. I agree some sort of recognition is merited. I put it we recognize Oga ds, as opposed to josh, as doing for fairy tales what Einstein did for science. He's far more worthy of that respect than the competition

Logicboy03: Is it me or is it just that this guy has no idea about what he is talking about and he is damn proud of it?

SMH

Obviously not you. Don't have time atm to deal with such sublime nonsense, but will be back. Or not, as I'm not exactly getting paid to school these clowns....

@TV, for starters, exactly how are homosexuality and het relationships different? Because you say so? Do you think I added the bit about procreation because I enjoy discussions with proud bigots? I hope you have something other than the bible to back up your implied claim that a homo couple cannot provide the same sort of care a het couple can manage. I suppose it similar to how back in the day, black man, women etc couldn't vote because we were inferior?

Op, why did your god design sexes? There are asexual beings, no? Or does your god have a sex?

And what exactly is your god responsible for? He's responsible for creating the sexes but not for the very flawed female reproductive system, responsible for most deaths through history? Was he trolling females when he put the gspot outside rather than in, or was he doing folk with small pipis a favor?

Godidit

Round and round

God may not have been responsible for this universe even, let alone humanity, but he was responsible for the human brain

Was he responsible for putting say virus DNA into humans as well? The female reproductive system, responsible for more deaths than anything else in our history? Etc etc. And do tell, he goes about haphazardly doing all these nonsense but cares not to reveal himself. His aim then, to watch the Truman show?

Maybe I should actually pay attention. Then again, bs makes me sick

I am picking up though that god is made of big grammar

TV01: Diminishing marriage for the 98%+ to make it equal for the tiny minority is not equality.

I don't understand, are you getting gay married as well? And if you are, exactly how does the process become diminished now that you're getting the same rights everyone else has?

Here's my main focus though

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=equality+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=XmK-UpaHEKep0AX07oGoAQ

google: equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iː-/
noun
noun: equality; plural noun: equalities

1. the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

I hope that clears up any problems as to what 'equality' is?

TV01: Forget for a moment that marriage has ever existed and please answer the questions again;

Your case hinges on (judeoxtian, no less) tradition yet you come up with this? (You even more or else state so above IIRC). If marriage never existed you wouldn't have a case. Every single thing a married het couple can do, a ghey couple can as well. In fact, one coould say they're better in certain areas, eg regulating family size.

If births are the issue, in a lot of today's world intercourse isn't even a requirement to procreate. Regardless, why can't they use surrogates, adopt, etc? Even if you fancied yourself some sort of arbiter on just who is allowed to procreate with who and you castrated them all, like you acknowledge above, they are a tiny minority. And of course, you'd have to do the same to every straight couple as well, eg those guilty of infidelity

If your issue is that a family unit should consist a father and mother, well, what gives you the right to dictate what is natural to you as natural to everyone else? The bible??

Your case hinges on tradition and that is in NO way a good enough reason to deny people basic rights everyone else enjoys. It was once traditional to prohibit interracial marriages, no? Or taking slaves, second class citizens as brides, no?

TV01: 1. What is the benefit to society that would lead to recognition of their union?

So, in keeping with the theme, equality. We keep fair standards. This way we know that if tomorrow by some jazz the majority became gay, you still get to retain your rights to marry whosoever you want to, like everyone else. Or if xtianity suddenly lost it's popularity you still keep your right to worship whatever skydaddy you wish to worship. etc etc. We keep the tyranny of the majority in check, simple.

And even basic, simple happiness (and productivity) of citizens. Or just human decency, or dignity, or rights. Exactly since when did everything, especially the victimless, need some sort of profit margins attached to it? I think church a monumental waste of very valuable resources and can back that up logically. Maybe we should get rid of churches?

Some of your other questions are simply disingenuous, silly and downright callous. You already know what benefits legally married couples enjoy, so I'm confused as to why you ask. Are you married? Perhaps you'd appreciate government denying your spouse rights if the unthinkable happened to you? Why people bother with something that isn't their concern bewilders

Fok

Oh boy na wa iverpool...

No gawk. Second half dem go sleep sha

maclatunji: Scientists are conducting experiments to find magic? Try another one.

I say your comprehension is limited, you say something is hindering your perception. Before nko?

Erm, mac, comprehension and perception are clearly 2 different things. And this is what you quoted

MAC_BOSSU: Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

So, in case you missed it, you aren't saying we just can't perceive it, you're saying we cannot even intuit or understand it. In other words, that we can never comprehend it.

Mysteriosnesessesses

And, to crown that, you then add this

MAC_BOSSU: @bolded, People are trying? keep trying but kindly keep quiet when those who know discuss. #LOL

Excuse me, which is it?? Can we or can we not comprehend it??! Do you or do you not know? When you quote all your science this

YOU: Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once.

Are you saying the people who propose this do not understand what they're on about?? So exactly why do you quote it?? You do know they intuit this with mathematics and imagination, yes? No one has actually seen a particle appear in all places at once, yes? (they can, however test these, difference between a hypothesis and a theory, see? Also, see effective theories)

Or is it that you comprehend that we cannot comprehend it? Really, exactly why and how? And which scientific community is backing this up, your madrasa's head clowns? Which logic supports this?

As for how we cannot perceive it, same thing applies to your not perceiving UV rays, certain sounds, etc. You do know they are there, your brain simply isn't wired to perceive them, yes? We simply do not have the tools, but we could intuit and build tools to confirm these ideas, yes? Eg the recently confirmed Higgs boson. In fact, the same process used to confirm Higgs can be used to confirm certain theories, eg strings, but using energies by orders of magnitude higher.

We cannot test these yet, but luckily, the scientific community won't just fold their hands and say godidit. And when they're done, you will hypocritically use the fruits of these labors (you'll also likely fish out a verse from the perfect koran which you can twist and claim was a 'prediction', placing a target after the shot has been taken then claiming you hit the bull's eye. Funny how it cannot provide any answers until science investigates, and how you'll forget that you were once preaching we will never know).

Scientists sadly won't entertain us with stories about absolute truths that you cannot comprehend, like you're doing now.

And the going back in time, etc, still remains just one of the options. Here

wiki: An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

There are even more far fetched ideas in the scientific world, like this one which posits that there's only one electron in this universe, it moving through time. Universes as Holograms, black holes, etc, are even entertained as having some merit. If scientists are willing to entertain such ideas so long as the math checks out, I wonder just how bad the math of your god theories are.

Kudos mac

maclatunji: Another rule under quantum physics is:

Your consciousness affects the behaviour of
subatomic particles

This one is the ultimate challenge: the implication is that- "If you are studying and are aware of it, it will change its behaviour".

What do you do? Accept that you cannot truly understand it for studying it would not yield the required information.

Lol no, that's just one interpretation. I dont eben think its the most supported one these days. Again, the model is incomplete. There is 'strangeness' involved with observing a system, which cannot be done without altering the system in some way mind you, and its state, no doubt, but that does not mean it's magic. Proper scientists are exploring various options eg multi verse and hidden dimensions (which would especially hinder human perception, or that of any conceivable intelligent life form even, but still definitely not beyond our understanding. Also note; perception, not understanding) a LA string theory and others to explain these.

Keep your proud ignorance to yourself, don't get in their way with your silly godidit

maclatunji: Disprove this:

Quantum physics tells us that reality is far
beyond human perception and intuition.
In other words, our rational mind and
common sense are just not capable of
understanding the true nature of reality.

It is not by stringing words together.

Lol. And later on your brah will come ban me for calling you a clown. Exactly how is this not stringing words together fatuously?

Nice to see your source display his level of intellectual prowess. The many predictions confirmed (no other theory has been confirmed to degrees of accuracy as the SM, EVER), I guess all the many scientists involved, from planck through Einstein to Weinberg today, the many thousands involved researching it eg cern and the lhc, are clueless? It being unintuitive (to some, mind you) doesn't in any way mean it is beyond our abilities. I grew up learning a certain family of languages, I suppose that means I can never learn Chinese which does just about everything differently, no?

As for the gray areas, like I said in my deleted post, left to you clowns spirit is responsible for sneezing.

Many of the people involved with this work are religious, you even note that, but fail to note they keep their faith out of their work. You though, great Mac, know better

You seem to worship ignorance. I'd recommend you stay out of matters that aren't your business, but that's a waste of time.

Deep Sight: Right.

Following on from this. But before I do, I should make a brief comment on strangeness.

Most people live their lives within a "normalcy" that allows them to be completely oblivious of just how absolutely strange and odd this world, this existence of ours, is. I do not. Although it is a dysfunction of some sort, and troubles me a great deal, I live every day with an acute consciousness of the strangeness of life and of our existence: the strangeness of everything about us. Indeed, the strangeness of our very own lives.

For this is exactly what has happened, as far as we know:

In what appears a stagnant void, existing, for all observable purposes, eternally in the past, a sudden burst of matter and energy occurred. This sudden burst, as far as we know, took place about 14 billion years ago, in terms of our current measurement of time. From a single point of virtually infinite energy, the origin and nature of which is unknown, an expansion of matter and energy proceeded, the size and scale of which is absolutely unfathomable to the human mind. The size of the observable universe (not to speak of the universe, whole) is unbelievable and out of all proportion to that which the human mind can visually grasp or comprehend.

Any person who does not regard this (the sudden blossoming into existence of the universe from the point of a singularity) as a pretty strange thing to occur in a seeming void, will have to be pretty strange himself. But wait, that is only the beginning of the strangeness which I tried to convey in such light words in the intro contained in my OP.

It gets stranger. Within the same universe, there, from chemical interactions, at some point in time, supposedly, something quite special and different emerges. Something different from the dead matter about it - living organisms. These organisms grow and evolve over time. Along the way, plant life emerges, also, conscious, feeling, breathing creatures, animals. Ultimately, mankind come forth - self-conscious, thinking, feeling intelligent beings with a sense of past, present and future, and with such very strange tendencies as art, science, music, philosophy, and even cosmological philosophy, religion, as well as moral and societal codes and laws.

In this interaction, in their societies, they create galaxies of knowledge, of new learning, of ideas without limit. But, as with all other living things about them: notwithstanding the high extent of their minds, the loves and passions of their lives, their extensive pursuits: at some point - they die.

And what does this death mean. That every single man, woman and child walking on this earth, floating around the sun, within the larger universe - will lie motionless in death, and rot away. You, me, everyone.

From the first mystery of the big b.ang, what triggered it, what powered it, why it happened at all, to the mystery of first life, and then on to the mystery of self-conscious intelligent life, and on to the mystery of death, it is all a really, really odd thing that has happened, that is happening, and that continues to happen. The existence of the universe, the existence of life, and the existence of us.

Thus people seek meaning in their lives, for otherwise it is perplexing. The sheer futility of compulsory and unavoidable death, the enigma of it all, is enough to compel man to seek meaning in his life: however it is also sufficient to render man renegade, not caring one way or the other. For if all things end in death, why should man seek any ideal higher than to enjoy himself within this brief stay under the sun.

When the atheist thus preaches to the religionist, asking the religionist to forsake the coagulation of ideas which give him purpose and meaningfulness in his otherwise perplexing existence, the atheist should be ready to offer a purpose and a meaningfulness higher and better, in lieu of the purpose and meaning of the life of the religious.

The atheist would do well to understand that few people would choose the seeming perplexing meaninglessness and randomness of "chance" life, in a "chance" universe, over a meaning, a purpose and an order. Such meaning, purpose and order, the atheist should inculcate into his evangelism, before seeking to deconvert the theist.

An unenviable task, given the strangeness of all things about us, as described above. . . .

Ignoring obvious problems with your post as on mobile. Eg assuming this universe is an atypical one off, ignoring that perhaps it simply couldn't be any other way, assuming we're the only beings on this rock with a sense of time, the implied assertion that consciousness of our sort or any other sort is inherently good/special and thus some magical being would go out of its way to create it etc etc, ignoring these for now, make up your mind. Which god are you talking about?

When we criticise folk, it's usually Yahweh believers and for very good reason. We are not the ones incapable of descerning reality from poor high fantasy. We do not deny gheys rights and toss children out out of homes because of some silly delusions.

So which god are you talking about? If you're talking about your somethingness nothingness do tell how many of us have tried to take that away from you?

If beliefs cause cancer, they need to be pointed out. Very simple. If the core of those beliefs needs to be attacked in order to drive home the point, then it will be done.

If they dont want these attacks, then they should keep them in their pants. I am not going to hold back because it harms ones worldview. One expecting that is rather selfish imo. Think of a muslim bemoaning attacks on his faith because he wouldnt get pedo anymore, or one that simply pretends thetes no problem because he wants to get into heaven.

And if these 'attacks' really bothered one that much i would think their conviction lacking

Mr Troll: So 2013 ends and no Chelsea striker scored an away goal. I say Mo should sell the 3 of them and use the money to buy a new suit.

My experience may only include playing 'championship manager' religiously a few years ago and also actually scoring with torres, but on FIFA (not sure I managed that on CM), but I say we get rid of mou and hire myself.

Mynd_44: To the emboldened, the answer is simple: Moderator's intuition....

Excellent. And what we're telling you is we find your intuition really, really $hitty. On par with the great macs. We've even pointed out how but you frivolously excuse it as 'trolling'. Na wa

Only thing you do better than mac is not ban for months. You don't believe me? Ask around. And before you try to pass this off as something objective, do tell how 'intuition' can be objectively appraised....

Now, it's not solely your fault, to be fair (though, imo you could be much less biased). The system is silly. That's why different mods from differing faiths are usually recommended by the community; so some semblance of fairness is maintained. If not, this section should be labeled 'xtianity for xtians', or 'atheism for atheists', rather than the disingenuous catchall you have there. "Religion", yet all the mods are born again....

Let's see, you'll hide this as well because it's trolling? You, on the other hand, aren't trolling, despite randomly attacking the xter of people and dictating what's acceptable and what's not with impunity?

Well....

rationalmind: Arsenal 0-1 Chelsea.
Goal Scorer: Demba ba

You speak of miracles, youve been around here too long

Though granted, arsenal are much more often than not spineless during these occasions.

I'd take a sexy 442 with ba and Torres. But pls satan, whatever happens, let this be Torres' last season.

I'm looking hard, but I cannot see how you addressed anything here. By your standards, one could easily say this post is nothing more than an off-topic ad hominem....

MOD?!!:
I am surprised you are even asking this. You mean to tell me calling people names like clowns is not derailing? How is name calling related to the thread in question?

Erm, chief clown, obviously calling people names is not derailing. Derailing is making a post unrelated to the thread, yes? So exactly why can't both be done? Since when were they mutually exclusive?

That asides, who's calling who names? Calling a clown a clown is just that. You make one laugh? You're a clown. That's the definition, no?

Again, to xtians anyone who doesn't believe in GOD??!! is a fool. Something I point out to which you blissfully ignore. If you're offended about being called a clown, I'm offended about being called a fool. So, what are you doing about all the threads that call us good atheist fools, like this one? Or indeed, posts that call us fools, like this one on that very same thread

deep_sight: If you had any idea of probabilities and "statistical analysis" you would not be an atheist.

You would see the stark, dim witted f.oolishness therein.

The epileptic insanity, even.

Or are you saying calling one a clown is more insulting than calling one a dimwitted, epileptic, insane fool?

Being the good mod that you are, I await you dealing with these (for starters, don't worry, I'll dig up many many more. we need to keep this place 'clean').

As for off topic, again, do post said post here again so you can show me just how. Is it more so than say this, this, and many others from that very same thread? Eg, the one from deep sight I quote just above? Hmmmm, baffling. I seem to recall even addressing some of his claims, eg most scientists were religious, microevolution makes sense but macro doesn't, etc etc, no?

MOD??!!:
Yes. Must you try to be insultive? Why can't you debate with politeness or atleast maintain a standard of not trying to come across as insultive?

Now you, good ser, accuse me of trying to be insultive. That, frankly, is folly. No, I was not trying to be insultive, I was simply telling him what is, just as I'm doing now to you. You find that insultive? You may be confused as I am not here be your nanny or something similar. That you think you know my intentions as well is just....

And again, mac wasn't trying to be insultive? You could have fooled me. Let's see if we can deduce his intentions, as you just expertly did mine

mac_bossu: I would be shocked if anyone does not believe in microevolution: which basically means that animals and plants can experience minor changes over time but not to the extent that an amoeba would become a human being. That is just laughable.

Well, actually, lots of folk don't 'believe' in microevolution. I suppose their being 'laughable' is not insulting?

mac_bossu: If this is what your "rational mind" can conjure, I shudder to think of what you would present when irrational.

mac_bossu: Really? Go to the bank tomorrow to cash a cheque on it... #LOL

mac_bossu: Obviously, I cannot live on this thread but I promise to come-in to address the better arguments from the posts of those who disagree with me. #Godwilling

This is mostly from just page 2. Obviously there's a lot more in there if I actually paid proper attention.

So, is mocking one's intelligence and goading exempt? Confusing. Or, again, maybe one is insulting only when the word 'clown' is used? As I fail to see how you missed these.

And all the other slander I mention earlier. Here's an exchange

amanfrommars: Btw, no atheist I know of holds that we come from nothing. That's a misconception. No one knows the origin of life. We can only speculate. And no matter how brilliant your speculation, it would never count for evidence.

mac_bossu: Hahahaha, then do not call yourself an Atheist then, call yourself a 'sceptic'.

So, he's been told being atheist doesn't necessarily equate to believing in 'nothing'. He simply laughs it away

Ooman later states

ooman: Since you also claim your god does not have a creator, each time you make such statement, you insult your god as nothing.

Hope your logic become clear to you now.

And this is no lecture for atheists, this is a show of your ignorance.

mac_bossu: Hahahahaa... your logic would be valid if I claimed there are many Gods as there are many of you up to the point that you can reproduce.

I claim that God is the source of everything and is one of a kind that cannot be replicated.

#Tryagain

Here you go, an atheist that finds the accusation he believes in nothing insulting (and he's far from the only one who's insulted when it's implied he has no purpose in life simply because he does not believe in skydaddy). He uses mac's GOD??!! to show just how insulting that statement is, let's not forget amanfrommars has already pointed out that assertion is not true. And what does mac do when all this is brought to his attention? He laughs at ooman.

Or this particular gem

mac_bossu: A classic example is HIV.
The virus has evolved to take advantage of the moral decadence of men towards homosexuality to spread quickly amongst the general population.

If I have to point out just how insulting, and simply plain wrong, this statement is, then well.....


I ask for consistency, good sir. Please proceed to hiding/banning 'atheist are fools' threads/posts for starters, then we can deal with every other post that might be insulting to any group or person. Also, the thread in question I would think is a priority, as it's a snakepit of malicious lies against the xter and 'beliefs' of atheists.

Thank you

Erm, oh overlord mod.

[size=24pt]WHY ARE MY COMMENTS BEING HIDDEN[/size]

Manhunter™:
To be honest, I don't understand this question. Care to elucidate?

Can god make 1+1 not equal 2.

You're doing well so far, I'm almost angry. When fully angry then I'd say you pass as a full blown xtian

Reyginus: Please come in, I don't know what the above is talking about

Your nonsense, obviously....

Reyginus: On a serious note, I don't understand this example too.

It's quite clear. You say god is not bound to any laws, well, the bolded is a law.

Reyginus: Lol. How this dude talks.

Bad reyg, don't ignore. 1+1=2, do show how god??!! Is above this mathematical truth

Reyginus: I think if you are really unbiased in your observation you would have noticed that I was really in for a good argument with him before he got stuck.

I claim to be unbiased, where? This your doe eyed holier than thou, I've addressed it how many times now? Go back to the satanist thread, where you were once again monumentally lost, to see how it works.

Reyginus: If you only you can continue where he stopped, by simply admitting that the answer he expected for why God commanded genocide is wrong, and apologize, go ahead to define the intent and effect of Charles Taylor's action on his great-grand-children, then you can take it from there.

Erm, you seem to have already come to a conclusion. So what exactly do you want to discuss? What do you want me to apologize for, not doing the same drugs you do?

What do charles taylors intents have to do with anything? Are his kids not 'free willed' according to your folklore? So, how are they responsible, or held accountable, for grand pa charles' sins? And if free will doesn't exist, how is anyone responsible for anything??