Is doing evil a necessity of life?

[ding]

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

 

[Mudda]

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

 

[ScienceRocks]

God is evil since he made everything....

God is both good and evil...

 

[ding]

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

 

[ding]

God is evil since he made everything....

God is both good and evil...

No. Evil is not extant.

 

[Mudda]

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

 

[ding]

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

 

[Mudda]

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

 

[ding]

But by definition you can't believe that. By definition you must believe that it might actually be that way because you admit you don't know. Are you telling me now you do know?

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

 

[Mudda]

I know that your theories have failed. But I don't close the door that someone with bring me some. It just won't be you, that's for sure.

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

 

[OZman]

Is doing evil a necessity of life?

Did the ancients know this and Is that why we are all named as sinners?

Ethics have existed for millennia.

 

[ding]

But when we discuss my theories you don't have any science to back you up. I do.

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you knows the universe had a beginning.

 

[Mudda]

It's too bad that you don't know how to properly back up what you say, because then I wouldn't feel like I'm beating up a clown all the time, and it would be more challenging as a discussion.

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

 

[ding]

I don't believe I have ever heard you discuss anything scientific.

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

 

[Mudda]

Because you haven't presented any real science to discuss.

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

 

[ding]

No. You are thinking about yourself.

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you knows the universe had a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

 

[Mudda]

Everyone thinks you're a clown. Now you know.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you knows the universe had a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

 

[ding]

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you know the universe had a beginning.

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you knows the universe had a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Are you going to cry because the universe had a beginning?

 

[Mudda]

This current universe started at the BB, but nobody yet knows what went on before that. Anyways, you're supposed to be trying to prove your god, and whether the BB was the absolute beginning is irrelevant to the matter.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. So I don't know what you mean by current universe and you probably don't either. After all you believe in invisible life forces, souls and reincarnation. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. I think it is time you stop denying science.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Again I believe you are thinking about yourself. Everyone but you knows the universe had a beginning. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite acting universe. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Atheists like yourself have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

Are you going to cry because the universe had a beginning?

You just spew stuff out willy-nilly without ANY real scientific proof. ******* clown.

 

[there4eyeM]

So hypnotized by our words that we cannot see past them.