does God love us?

[ding]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

 

[Taz]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

 

[Taz]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

 

[ding]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

 

[ding]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

You mean other than understanding that empirical evidence and the interpretation of empirical evidence are two separate things?

 

[Taz]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

 

[Taz]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

You mean other than understanding that empirical evidence and the interpretation of empirical evidence are two separate things?

You can't interpret evidence however you want. Who are you? Donald Trump? (you voted for that fat fuck, lol)

 

[ding]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

No. Because you behave so.

 

[Taz]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

No. Because you behave so.

Because it really, really bothers you to be called homo stuff.

 

[ding]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

You mean other than understanding that empirical evidence and the interpretation of empirical evidence are two separate things?

You can't interpret evidence however you want. Who are you? Donald Trump? (you voted for that fat fuck, lol)

That's funny because I have never testified as an expert witness where the opposing side's expert witnessed didn't argue a different conclusion from the exact same evidence.

 

[ding]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

No. Because you behave so.

Because it really, really bothers you to be called homo stuff.

No. It really reveals your true beliefs about homosexuals, stupid.

I'm perfectly fine with you showing your true colors to everyone.

Do it some more to prove my point.

 

[Taz]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

You mean other than understanding that empirical evidence and the interpretation of empirical evidence are two separate things?

You can't interpret evidence however you want. Who are you? Donald Trump? (you voted for that fat fuck, lol)

That's funny because I have never testified as an expert witness where the opposing side's expert witnessed didn't argue a different conclusion from the exact same evidence.

Empirical would be what the data becomes after the trial has been decided.

 

[Taz]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

No. Because you behave so.

Because it really, really bothers you to be called homo stuff.

No. It really reveals your true beliefs about homosexuals, stupid.

I'm perfectly fine with you showing your true colors to everyone.

Do it some more to prove my point.

C'mon, I bet you even do a little downlow with your bible study bruthaz.

 

[ding]

Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted

That's a brilliant statement.

You have none so that point is moot.

You mean other than understanding that empirical evidence and the interpretation of empirical evidence are two separate things?

You can't interpret evidence however you want. Who are you? Donald Trump? (you voted for that fat fuck, lol)

That's funny because I have never testified as an expert witness where the opposing side's expert witnessed didn't argue a different conclusion from the exact same evidence.

Empirical would be what the data becomes after the trial has been decided.

Keep showing off that top tier intelligence, Taz.

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1]

 

[ding]

Show me every verse where it is mentioned so that the proper context can be established. There aren't that many.

You're a bible follower.

He zips and zings his way out of being held to any standard. Don’t waste your time researching the Bible to argue with ding. He will just make this slippery claim that God was smoking cigars with him and told him that part of the Bible was just a joke. It’s hilarious to watch his flexibility. Christians live by the Bible. Ding lives by what is good and he is against all that is bad. Don’t even try to play the gotcha card on him. God will just tell him that you are wrong and ding is right. Isn’t it uncanny that God never tells ding that he is wrong. Weird.

That's odd cause God keeps bringing me back to all the lessons I didn't learn the first, second and third times.

If you and Taz actually had logical arguments instead of emotional arguments you'd probably be able to convince me but your straw men arguments of what you believe Christians must believe just isn't cutting it.

Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence and build straw men arguments for what Christians should believe.

What you and Taz are really crying about is how I routinely kick your asses.

"Your strategy is to systematically deny all evidence that proves God's existence". Nobody has shown any. You certainly haven't with your "the universe existing proves it was poofed into existence from nothing by an invisible magician because I say so".

You are confusing proof with evidence, dummy. The only evidence for a Creator is what was created.

I don't believe in an invisible magician either, dum dum.

It's evidence of something, but not your invisible magician who poofed everything into being from nothing. You're delusional from licking hairy balls again.

Now I see why you can't understand why it's evidence for a Creator, you keep thinking of an invisible magician.

Your two dad's are crying because of your homophobia.

If you took this schpeel into court they'd throw the case out for lack of evidence.

No. The evidence would be argued both ways, dummy. You want to dismiss it before it is ever argued.

But you don't have a connection, it's like saying Bob did it, that's it. Guilty. No proof needed. You have a dead body.

The connection is seen from the physical laws of nature, the biological laws of nature and the moral laws of nature that mind is the source of existence.

That's a personal opinion not backed up by empirical data.

That's called interpreting evidence. Evidence is empirical data, dummy. So my interpretation is backed up with empirical data.

YOU are the one who has no interpretation of the evidence. So YOUR interpretation is not backed up by evidence because you have no interpretation of the evidence. If YOU did have an interpretation of the evidence, then I could show you how your interpretation is not backed up by the evidence.

Thanks for clearing that up, you're "interpreting" any data. Empirical data doesn't need to be interpreted, lol.
Otherwise known as putting the goalposts right where you want them to be.

Of course it does, dummy. Data is data. It doesn't magically make its own conclusions. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?

You’ve been slobbering on too many black cocks, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no proof. That’s it, that’s all.

So being gay is bad, right?

You think so.

No, you behave so.

Because you think so.

No. Because you behave so.

Because it really, really bothers you to be called homo stuff.

No. It really reveals your true beliefs about homosexuals, stupid.

I'm perfectly fine with you showing your true colors to everyone.

Do it some more to prove my point.

C'mon, I bet you even do a little downlow with your bible study bruthaz.

You can do better than that to showcase your anti-gay beliefs, taz.