Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[JimBowie1958]

I find that really creepy.

Is it as creepy as him stalking some 19yr old kid who doesnt know he exists on facebook and then bragging about it, and talking about his panties?

How do you expect people to react to your shit posting and trolling?

With pity?

Piss off.

 

[Hollie]

When it comes to "personal experiences of the gods" ... the examples devolve quickly into cultural examples.

Why would anything else be expected. Even siblings can have very different perspectives of almost everything.

It reinforces to me that one's insistence on the "true gods" is merely a coincidence of place of birth.

If, for example, a couple of the Christian extremists in this thread had been born and raised in the islamic Middle East, I could easily see them as being the screeching, ISIS flag-waving, Jihad-proclaiming Moslems.

 

[Ringtone]

YOU brought him up, you fuckin retard

Are you rocking in your chair again? The eyes, are they rolling back in your head? Is that it? Another fit overtaking you?

Alex O'Connor is a successful youtuber that actually studies philosophy @University and has the nuts to debate in person.

Remember my opening statement:

O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

Behold the caliber of O'Connor's . . . snort . . . apologetics. . . .
​

Is it coming back to you yet? Aren't you going to discuss origins accordingly. By all means use O'Connor's arguments and I'll pull his panties down all over again for you, atheist. Aren't you going to defend your boy? He's studying philosophy and stuff . . . and he's only 19!

Hey, Dummy - YOU brought up Alex two or so WEEKS ago, and what you just quoted was me referencing that. Where YOU brought him up...and now you're calling him "my boy" that I'm somehow defending - because you're a weirdo on the internet who seems to need a life.

And you referencing his panties is super ******* creepy...he's basically a boy. ..barely past legal age you creeper.

Grow a pair of balls and speak directly with Alex if you're so damn obsessed with him you lunatic

LOL! I gave you a link to my Youtube discussion page relative to the mathematics of infinity because of something you claimed in that thread. I didn't make a big deal out of the fact that the section to which I referred you is part of a refutation of O'Connor's video. Remember? I assumed you had an account because YOU claimed that my observations had been debunked on Youtube. Remember?

Remember when I reminded you that the only way to debunk the KCA is to coherently show how an actual infinite is possible or how it's possible for existence to arise from nonexistence, that only rubes who in fact do not grasp the imperatives of the KCA imagine that it can be debunked, rubes like O'Connor?

You're the only one what made a big deal about him, as if he were some kind VIP because he makes videos, studies philosophy at university . . . and he's only 19!

LOL!

Once again, O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

How old do you think I am, atheist?

I'm only 28!

I think you're old enough not to talk about the panties of 19yr olds, dufus - but not too old not to be duped into Cults by charlatans like William Lane Craig.

The Kalam has not 1, but SEVERAL refutations, and that you don't understand the implications of infinities doesn't make your assertions and misapprehensions true. Are you a physicist, or a schizophrenic nutbar on the internet that spends his time ankle biting 19yr olds' youtube channels from behind anonymous walls of text...because he thinks he has a solid grasp of the physics involving the origins of the Universe.

Once again, I was in the Marines at the age of 19 and attending college when I could stateside between two tours in Afgan. Who the hell is Alex O'Connor to me other than a useful foil against whom to sharpen my understanding of things? I was asked by a Youtuber who does do videos to write an evaluation of O'Connor's video. Later, I posted it to my discussion page so O'Connor could see it. I shot him a link to the critique. That's all.

I'm beginning to think that your thin skin—your tender sensibilities over a painties remark, your insinuation of something weird—is wrapped around a minor. That would explain a lot. How old are you, son?

 

[G.T.]

YOU brought him up, you fuckin retard

Are you rocking in your chair again? The eyes, are they rolling back in your head? Is that it? Another fit overtaking you?

Alex O'Connor is a successful youtuber that actually studies philosophy @University and has the nuts to debate in person.

Remember my opening statement:

O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

Behold the caliber of O'Connor's . . . snort . . . apologetics. . . .
​

Is it coming back to you yet? Aren't you going to discuss origins accordingly. By all means use O'Connor's arguments and I'll pull his panties down all over again for you, atheist. Aren't you going to defend your boy? He's studying philosophy and stuff . . . and he's only 19!

Hey, Dummy - YOU brought up Alex two or so WEEKS ago, and what you just quoted was me referencing that. Where YOU brought him up...and now you're calling him "my boy" that I'm somehow defending - because you're a weirdo on the internet who seems to need a life.

And you referencing his panties is super ******* creepy...he's basically a boy. ..barely past legal age you creeper.

Grow a pair of balls and speak directly with Alex if you're so damn obsessed with him you lunatic

LOL! I gave you a link to my Youtube discussion page relative to the mathematics of infinity because of something you claimed in that thread. I didn't make a big deal out of the fact that the section to which I referred you is part of a refutation of O'Connor's video. Remember? I assumed you had an account because YOU claimed that my observations had been debunked on Youtube. Remember?

Remember when I reminded you that the only way to debunk the KCA is to coherently show how an actual infinite is possible or how it's possible for existence to arise from nonexistence, that only rubes who in fact do not grasp the imperatives of the KCA imagine that it can be debunked, rubes like O'Connor?

You're the only one what made a big deal about him, as if he were some kind VIP because he makes videos, studies philosophy at university . . . and he's only 19!

LOL!

Once again, O'Connor is a third-rate hack with a British accent. By the age of 19, I'd already read most of the pertinent literature from Moses to Aristotle to Hume to Descartes and beyond, and O'Connor is very much aware of my critique.

How old do you think I am, atheist?

I'm only 28!

I think you're old enough not to talk about the panties of 19yr olds, dufus - but not too old not to be duped into Cults by charlatans like William Lane Craig.

The Kalam has not 1, but SEVERAL refutations, and that you don't understand the implications of infinities doesn't make your assertions and misapprehensions true. Are you a physicist, or a schizophrenic nutbar on the internet that spends his time ankle biting 19yr olds' youtube channels from behind anonymous walls of text...because he thinks he has a solid grasp of the physics involving the origins of the Universe.

Once again, I was in the Marines at the age of 19 and attending college when I could stateside between two tours in Afgan. Who the hell is Alex O'Connor to me other than a useful foil against whom to sharpen my understanding of things? I was asked by a Youtuber who does do videos to write an evaluation of O'Connor's video. Later, I posted it to my discussion page so O'Connor could see it. I shot him a link to the critique. That's all.

I'm beginning to think that you're thin skin—your tender sensibilities over a painties remark, your insinuation of something weird—is wrapped around a minor. That would explain a lot. How old are you, son?

heres to your wall of mansplain

 

[Meriweather]

It reinforces to me that one's insistence on the "true gods" is merely a coincidence of place of birth.

If, for example, a couple of the Christian extremists in this thread had been born and raised in the islamic Middle East, I could easily see them as being the screeching, ISIS flag-waving, Jihad-proclaiming Moslems.

I think of one God and the many perceptions there are of God--or of anyone, for that matter. Consider the President, for example, and all the ways people perceive him.

 

[Ringtone]

I find that really creepy.

Is it as creepy as him stalking some 19yr old kid who doesnt know he exists on facebook and then bragging about it, and talking about his panties?

How do you expect people to react to your shit posting and trolling?

With pity?

Piss off.

Actually, Jim, I think G.T. is a minor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm only 28!

The Kalam has not 1, but SEVERAL refutations, and that you don't understand the implications of infinities doesn't make your assertions and misapprehensions true.

Lol, an atheist lecturing us on the 'implications of infinities'. lolololol

 

[Ringtone]

Define what you say doesn't exist, slogan spouter.

Oh, I agree explanations for the gaps in our knowledge exist. There is just no evidence for those explanations.

Oh, look, everybody, cnm is mocking me. LOL!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually, Jim, I think G.T. is a minor.

By mental age or calendar date?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Define what you say doesn't exist, slogan spouter.

Oh, I agree explanations for the gaps in our knowledge exist. There is just no evidence for those explanations.

Oh, look, everybody, cnm is mocking me. LOL!

And like most ignotheists, entirely ducked your question.

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, Jim, I think G.T. is a minor.

By mental age or calendar date?

I'm serious. I really think he's a minor. The need to overreach in his mockery, the underlying cattiness of its flavor, his rather strange obsession with stalking, the pervi reaction to a harmless remark (only womanish males or youngsters would read anything weird like that into it), the lies, the exaggerations, the drama.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm serious. I really think he's a minor. The need to overreach in his mockery, the underlying cattiness of its flavor, his rather strange obsession with stalking, the pervi reaction to a harmless remark (only womanish males or youngsters would read anything weird like that into it), the lies, the exaggerations, the drama.

That explain a whole lot, true. He blocks his profile page, maybe he is a minor.

That would make him a 'miner troll?'

 

[Hollie]

It reinforces to me that one's insistence on the "true gods" is merely a coincidence of place of birth.

If, for example, a couple of the Christian extremists in this thread had been born and raised in the islamic Middle East, I could easily see them as being the screeching, ISIS flag-waving, Jihad-proclaiming Moslems.

I think of one God and the many perceptions there are of God--or of anyone, for that matter. Consider the President, for example, and all the ways people perceive him.

I just can't logically resolve a single god who would allow such confusion. Why would a god spark creation and allow multiple, competing images and icons and versions of "his" creation to become so utterly hostile to one another? This god inspired various books to be written about his lack of interaction with humanity while most of these books conflict with the others. "He" did not allow the original texts to survive in case the condemned-to-damnation humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations. "He" lets billions upon billions of people suffer on an ongoing basis when such suffering is in his power to stop.

I simply see nothing in the natural world that would allow for such an existence.

 

[Meriweather]

I just can't logically resolve a single god who would allow such confusion. Why would a god spark creation and allow multiple, competing images and icons and versions of "his" creation to become so utterly hostile to one another? This god inspired various books to be written about his lack of interaction with humanity while most of these books conflict with the others. "He" did not allow the original texts to survive in case the condemned-to-damnation humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations. "He" lets billions upon billions of people suffer on an ongoing basis when such suffering is in his power to stop.

I simply see nothing in the natural world that would allow for such an existence.

Being optimistic, I have faith it all works out at some point.

 

[Ringtone]

The Kalam has not 1, but SEVERAL refutations, and that you don't understand the implications of infinities doesn't make your assertions and misapprehensions true.

"The Kalam has not [one], but SEVERAL refutations," G.T. blurted and then went on to prattle something or another about how Spot didn't understand the implications of infinities.

"Yes, yes, go on," Spot encouraged as G.T. began to make a semblance of an argument.

"Do you think he'll actually go on to make an argument this time?" Dick wondered out loud.

Spot said, "I don't think so, Dick. I'm afraid he's spouting mindless slogans again."

"Is it possible that he thinks arguments are nothing more than bald assertions?" Jane wondered.

"You mean to say is he really that stupid?" Dick said.

"To think that slogans or bald claims are actual arguments?" Spot said, finishing the thought they were all thinking.

​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False! Once again it is abundantly clear from a voluminous body of historical, textual criticism that the synoptic Gospels were informed by manuscripts written during and shortly after Christ's ministry—

Madeup horseshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lol, an atheist lecturing us on the 'implications of infinities'.

Any high school junior could lecture you on that. Did you even pass algebra? Is there any subject you know anything about?

 

[ding]

it took till the 4th century for the crucifiers to write their illicit christian bible.

Stop being silly.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

explain jimbowie why the christian bible is written 4 centuries after the event using the full century to its last decade to write it and became the state church of the roman empire ... the "messiah" they put to death.

their interpretive messiah - at best.

But the earliest text was written a mere 25 years after the resurrection and we practice the same things the early Christians did. Early as in the time of Jesus.

 

[BreezeWood]

it took till the 4th century for the crucifiers to write their illicit christian bible.

Stop being silly.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

.

Why do you suppose he is being silly?

Maybe that is just who he is?

explain jimbowie why the christian bible is written 4 centuries after the event using the full century to its last decade to write it and became the state church of the roman empire ... the "messiah" they put to death.

their interpretive messiah - at best.

But the earliest text was written a mere 25 years after the resurrection and we practice the same things the early Christians did. Early as in the time of Jesus.

.

But the earliest text was written a mere 25 years after the resurrection and we practice the same things the early Christians did. Early as in the time of Jesus.

repeating your error does not make it right - there is nothing in your bible that is verified by an original copy made at the time of its instance and nothing in your book that was not placed there in the 4th century.

the christian religion is everything the 1st century was not - their ability for an afterlife was for them to accomplish themselves in the 1st century not worship someone that was living at the time - the interpretative christian messiah is an entirely 4th century aberration to instill the political underpinnings of the christian religion. the true jesus was the resurgence of the religion of antiquity, triumph over evil, similarity of noah.

 

[Ringtone]

repeating your error does not make it right - there is nothing in your bible that is verified by an original copy made at the time of its instance and nothing in your book that was not placed there in the 4th century.

the christian religion is everything the 1st century was not - their ability for an afterlife was for them to accomplish themselves in the 1st century not worship someone that was living at the time - the interpretative christian messiah is an entirely 4th century aberration to instill the political underpinnings of the christian religion. the true jesus was the resurgence of the religion of antiquity, triumph over evil, similarity of noah.

Citation?