Numbers, you are a brave JACKASS.

YOU and your EXISTENCE had to be CREATED, NOT GOD'S!

Lastly I was reading over this page and saw the REASON for NUMBERS and Mr.Misery's solidarity in thier belief that believers are STUPID.

To reveal that reason, I must quote the great IDIOT who goeth by the name of 'NUMBERS' here on F•U.

'Numbers' wrote:
----------------------------------------
> "It's not up to science to disprove god. It's up to you to prove to yourself that he/she exists. The rest of us don't give a shit and actually hope there is no god and we'd all be better off without one."

WHY do you "HOPE there is NO GOD"? Because your SCARED of the CREATOR, whom we refer to as "God"! Oh and with the lunacy you preach, it doesn't take an EINSTEIN to figure out YOU believe that YOU would be better off without a God to answer to.


Haha, well @least you conVinced me of one thing "Numbers", and that is the FACT that you DEVIL WORSHIPERS that MASQUERADE as "ATHIESTS" are nothin' but a buncha SCARED ASS BITCHES!



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> You were the one replying to me. Don't turn this
> around to make it seem like I confronted you about
> this. My questions/comments were directed at
> Gravis. He doesn't need you to answer for him.
> So, tits or GTFO

Do you like these tits, Numbers?
Attachments:

That picture SCARES ME!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

That's a normal reaction, Mr Troll.

Numbers is saving it to his desktop.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Theophilus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > It's useful for training, etc (2 Tim 3:16), but it
> > requires an interpreter or teacher (Acts 15; 1
> > Thess 5:12; Titus 2:1, 15; 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim 2:2).
>
> This is an incredibly evil concept for a religion
> whose main theme is love. "You need to believe
> what I tell you, or else you will suffer untold
> agony for all eternity. Of course it's vague and
> difficult to understand, but that's because you're
> not qualified to interpret it properly. However,
> I am, and you can totally trust me, like, for reals."
>
> To me, that's like saying, "You can either get in
> this beat up old van and have some of my free
> candy, or your parents will die tonight. Trust me."

If those passages necessarily implied the consequences you describe, I would agree they are incredibly evil.

But I don't think they do.

Because they are run by human beings, hierarchical systems always come with an inherent risk of corruption, negligence, and stupidity.

OTOH, such systems can achieve great good in this world far beyond the capacity of unorganized individuals. For both sides of the coin, think US govt, US military.

So far as we know, Jesus did not write down a single word, much less a book. Instead, for better or worse, he trained a group of men for 3 years, and then sent them forth with a mission, Mt 28:19, which he identifies with his own mission, John 20:21.

Human systems will always be beset by human weakness. When this takes place in the context of the gospel, when it is preached without love, it is a particular scandal, which has the obvious effect of driving people away from rather than towards faith.

At the same time, Christianity itself, pure and undefiled, reflects a scandal to the modern mind, what has been called "the scandal of particularity," ie, Christ's claim that "no one comes to the Father but by me."



> "You need to believe what I tell you, or else you will suffer untold
> agony for all eternity.

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." Mt 5:29-30

Yes, that's a hard saying. There's no two ways about it.



> It really comes down to this: If there's even one
> obvious error or contradiction in the Bible, then
> everything in it must be questioned...

Questioned, yes. Summarily repudiated, on the basis of one such obvious error or contradiction? If the Bible has even the smallest error, does Christianity fall apart? With all respect, this strikes me as extreme, as the imposition of an impossible theoretical standard which no human text can survive.

The Bible is very important, but we are not saved by the Bible. We are saved by Christ, to whom the Bible points.

The issue then for me - for what it's worth - is the historical reliability of the New Testament as a stepping-stone to Christ. I think there is a good deal of evidence for that reliability, which I sketched in some detail here: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/236943/238169.html#msg-238169 (9/8/09 10:54PM). In all seriousness, I would be happy to discuss that with you further, if you were interested.

That said, I realize these wordy posts are rather useless. What's needed, of course, is prayer.

"God’s mercy is infinite like God Himself. If we lay open our soul to Him with all its infirmities and sins, His Divine gaze penetrates this abyss of which we cannot see the bottom. His gaze goes into the most hidden recesses and brings us strength and light." http://vultus.stblogs.org/2009/01/blessed-abbot-marmion-on-the-m.html



> > First of all, virtually every text is open to
> > interpretation. Biblical, legal, literary, etc.
>
> Of course. When people pass the NIV off as the
> infallable word of God, though, that means you're
> just supposed to accept it at face value, not
> interpret it.

I suppose there are people who hold that position, but I don't think it's even possible to read the gospels in a serious fashion without interpreting them. Such matters as communion and baptism require taking a particular interpretive stance.

Which brings to mind Mark Twain's remark, when asked if he believed in infant baptism: "Believe it? Hell! I've seen it done."



> Throw in hundreds (if not thousands) of different
> translations over many, many generations as well.
> I'd bet my life that the King James Bible bears
> little resemblence to what people actually wrote
> down in their native language, in the beginning.

Translation is a serious and challenging issue - no question - but there is a strong case to be made for the reliability of the biblical text based on the manuscript evidence. These are of course in the nature of historical, not mathematical proofs.



> I was raised to believe that the Bible is the
> perfect and infallable word of God, yes. Whenever
> I found something that made me question that, I
> was told that even asking those questions was a
> sin. Eventually, I couldn't stand the guilt and
> fear anymore.

Many aspects of the modern world raise serious questions for Christianity, which shouldn't be suppressed. Indeed, the ancient problem of suffering posed in Job is very much with us still.

I'm not sure what would be the basis for holding that asking questions is a sin; the necessity of a childlike faith? That seems a stretch. To tell a young man that asking questions is a sin seems to me not only misguided and wrong, but contrary to the letter and spirit of the New Testament properly understood, 1 Pt 3:15.



> The big JC himself never once said anything about
> anybody's sex life outside of the "coveting your
> neighbor's wife" thing.

He did say this: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." Mt 15:19-20.

IOW, he put fornication in the same category with murder, as something that defiles a man.

He also said: "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," and in the same breath spoke of gouging out one's eye, etc, as preferable to sin. Mt 5:28-29.

If merely looking constitutes grave sin, what of doing? Need he have belabored the point?

Thankfully, he didn't say a word about internet pr0n, so at least we don't have to worry about that!



> 'Twas Saul who first
> wrote condemnations against gays. That's the same
> Saul who used to persecute Christians until he saw
> how much they thrived under persecution. The same
> Saul who went out by himself into the desert, had
> a vision from God, came back calling himself Paul,
> and went on to establish the church as we know it.

To address this would take us into deep waters, and this post is already verging on the dreaded tl;dr response.

Respectfully, I don't think the supposed dichotomy between Paul and Christ, a notion which arose out of German Higher Criticism and was popularized, in a sense, by Nietzsche, can withstand close criticism, and your specific observation about Paul establishing the church even less so. I could address this at greater (and doubtless boring) length if you were interested, but doing theology on FU would feel weird, like reading the Bible at a strip club.



> If I were to go into the woods and tell people
> that Jesus came to me and said I need to spread
> His message that we should stop persecuting
> homosexuals, I doubt anyone would believe me.

If stopping persecution = discovering a right to SSM in the Constitution that would indeed be a miracle of eisegesis (but then many of our judges are veritable miracle-workers when it comes to pulling formerly unknown rabbits out of that venerable document).

How bout a little fire, scarecrow!

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How bout a little fire, scarecrow!
>
>

While comedic and an interesting take, it fails to impress or enlighten. It really is typical atheist drivel, albeit delivered in an entertaining fashion. I am sure you regurguate the Hitchens speech and adhere to it as often as you adhere to the other debunked tenets of atheist ethos.

I respect your opinion, am considering your responses, and enjoying the conversation. Please don't take anything I'm saying as combative or dismissive. I wish more discussions on here were like this.

Theophilus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If those passages necessarily implied the
> consequences you describe, I would agree they are
> incredibly evil.
>
> But I don't think they do.

The key word here is "think." We agree that the Bible is not 100% clear, and open to interpretation. Even with the best of intentions, though, the interpretation can be wrong. Even if not evil, it's dangerous to have the key to eternal salvation or damnation even open to interpretation. If Paul (for example) taught Jesus's teachings the way he THOUGHT they were supposed to be and was wrong, he would inadvertantly be leading people on the path to Hell.

It would seem to me that if Jesus was God in the flesh, and God so loved the world that he gave us His only son so we may be saved, he would have taken the time to write something down himself so there wouldn't BE any question.

I mean, God can come down and tell two people explicitly which tree they're not allowed to eat from and write some stuff on stone tablets, but he can't put in a little effort to help billions avoid eternal suffering when he arbitrarily decides to change the rules? It strikes me as more than a little apathetic for a God of love, or pretty sloppy for an omniscient and omnipotent being.

> Because they are run by human beings, hierarchical
> systems always come with an inherent risk of
> corruption, negligence, and stupidity.
>
> OTOH, such systems can achieve great good in this
> world far beyond the capacity of unorganized
> individuals. For both sides of the coin, think US
> govt, US military.

The church has done some really great things in the world, I'll agree. Most critics tend to focus only on the bad. Charity programs, assistance for the needy, mission work... these things have helped people.

But, the consequences associated with the risk of misinterpreting the teachings of Christ (meaning, your eternal soul) are much more severe than the consequences of any earthly risks.

> So far as we know, Jesus did not write down a
> single word, much less a book. Instead, for
> better or worse, he trained a group of men for 3
> years, and then sent them forth with a mission, Mt
> 28:19, which he identifies with his own mission,
> John 20:21.

Have you ever considered that maybe Satan, in his attempt to lure people away from God, gave people this red herring of Jesus Christ? That maybe God's laws and rules never changed, and that Christianity is the devil's scheme?

> "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out
> and throw it away. It is better for you to lose
> one part of your body than for your whole body to
> be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes
> you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is
> better for you to lose one part of your body than
> for your whole body to go into hell." Mt 5:29-30
>
> Yes, that's a hard saying. There's no two ways
> about it.

So should that be taken literally or figuratively? If we're to take that literally, there wouldn't be a single church in the world with a single member still in posession of both hands and eyes. Figuratively, you can say that passage is telling you to remove the things from your life that cause you to sin, but the Bible isn't very clear on when it's being literal or figurative.

> Questioned, yes. Summarily repudiated, on the
> basis of one such obvious error or contradiction?
> If the Bible has even the smallest error, does
> Christianity fall apart? With all respect, this
> strikes me as extreme, as the imposition of an
> impossible theoretical standard which no human
> text can survive.

It is extreme, but it's the only rational conclusion to the idea that the Bible is the infallable word of God, 100% factual, and completely without error. It's also the way the scientific method works. For a theory to become a law, there must be no error, no contradiction, no flaws. If there's even one inconsistency, then it's not fact.

But, that's only if you're saying the Bible is perfect and flawless, which you are not.

> The Bible is very important, but we are not saved
> by the Bible. We are saved by Christ, to whom the
> Bible points.
>
> The issue then for me - for what it's worth - is
> the historical reliability of the New Testament as
> a stepping-stone to Christ. I think there is a
> good deal of evidence for that reliability, which
> I sketched in some detail here:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/23
> 6943/238169.html#msg-238169 (9/8/09 10:54PM). In
> all seriousness, I would be happy to discuss that
> with you further, if you were interested.

I would read that now, but I'm getting word fatigue. I didn't realize that you were also present in that thread, so sorry if I'm re-iterating some of the stuff I said over there.

> I suppose there are people who hold that position,
> but I don't think it's even possible to read the
> gospels in a serious fashion without interpreting
> them. Such matters as communion and baptism
> require taking a particular interpretive stance.
>
> Which brings to mind Mark Twain's remark, when
> asked if he believed in infant baptism: "Believe
> it? Hell! I've seen it done."

Well, is the death and resurrection of Christ literal or figurative? Did he literally turn water into wine, or was that just someone's opinion of what actually happened?

> Translation is a serious and challenging issue -
> no question - but there is a strong case to be
> made for the reliability of the biblical text
> based on the manuscript evidence. These are of
> course in the nature of historical, not
> mathematical proofs.

Agreed, but mathematical proofs are not open to interpretation or opinion. If I wrote "if x=2, then x2+3=7" on a piece of paper, that would still be true thousands of years later. It's just not a fair argument to call something as subjective as third-party multiple-translations "fact."

> I'm not sure what would be the basis for holding
> that asking questions is a sin; the necessity of a
> childlike faith? That seems a stretch. To tell a
> young man that asking questions is a sin seems to
> me not only misguided and wrong, but contrary to
> the letter and spirit of the New Testament
> properly understood, 1 Pt 3:15.

I always got slapped in the face with, "Thou shalt not question the Lord, thy God."

I asked my minister about astral projection one time after reading about it in a book when I was 13 or 14. I was told it was akin to witchcraft, and thus a tool of the Devil. No explanation past that, and searching for answers on my own was the path of sin.

> He did say this: "For out of the heart come evil
> thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
> thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the
> things which defile the man; but to eat with
> unwashed hands does not defile the man." Mt
> 15:19-20.

I stand corrected. It does raise the question though... If adultery (cheating on a spouse) and fornication (sex between unmarried people) is wrong, then why can't gays get married (according to popular Christianity)?

> IOW, he put fornication in the same category with
> murder, as something that defiles a man.
>
> He also said: "I tell you that anyone who looks at
> a woman lustfully has already committed adultery
> with her in his heart," and in the same breath
> spoke of gouging out one's eye, etc, as preferable
> to sin. Mt 5:28-29.

I would contend that this is like saying, "Whoever looks at a delicious pie and wants to eat it has already committed the sin of gluttony," but I'm not going to argue with Jesus. Frankly, I think the anti-homo crowd would be more worried about a guy who DIDN'T look at a pretty girl "lustfully." This is personal opinion, though.

> If merely looking constitutes grave sin, what of
> doing? Need he have belabored the point?
>
> Thankfully, he didn't say a word about internet
> pr0n, so at least we don't have to worry about
> that!

I know you're joking, but that's looking at a woman lustfully, and masturbation is a sin, too (thanks, Onan).

> To address this would take us into deep waters,
> and this post is already verging on the dreaded
> tl;dr response.

I'm reading it, but it's taken me literally all day to respond. I'm considering everything you're saying.

> Respectfully, I don't think the supposed dichotomy
> between Paul and Christ, a notion which arose out
> of German Higher Criticism and was popularized, in
> a sense, by Nietzsche, can withstand close
> criticism, and your specific observation about
> Paul establishing the church even less so.

I like Nietzsche, but I wasn't aware this was an idea of his. I don't even know what German Higher Criticism is. I kind of came to that conclusion on my own, after seeing how easy it is for televangelists to get away with what they're doing in the Information Age. It wouldn't have taken a lot of effort on Paul's part to pull this off, especially since he was already well-known.

> I could address this at greater (and doubtless
> boring) length if you were interested, but doing
> theology on FU would feel weird, like reading the
> Bible at a strip club.

Frankly, this is a discussion more suited towards an actual conversation, instead of replies over a message board. Maybe we can compromise someday, and discuss this at a strip club.

> If stopping persecution = discovering a right to
> SSM in the Constitution that would indeed be a
> miracle of eisegesis (but then many of our judges
> are veritable miracle-workers when it comes to
> pulling formerly unknown rabbits out of that
> venerable document).

Without straying into politics (which would surely test the character limit for future responses)... How can anyone claim a "sanctity of marriage" or "institution of marriage" when the divorce rate is 50% across the boards, even in the church? Getting divorced and re-marrying counts as adultery, as I was taught.

Good talk. Please don't respond too quickly. I need time to decompress by calling people "fags" and "retards" and posting funny pictures of cats.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Mr. Mephisto wrote:
----------------------------------
>I stand corrected. It does raise the question though... If adultery (cheating on a spouse) and fornication (sex between unmarried people) is wrong, then why can't gays get married (according to popular Christianity)?


Answer:

MARRAIGE in the eyes of God is BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
(promotes creation, otherwise it is an UNgodly act of fornication.)

That is why.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good talk.

I agree. I appreciate your comments and observations, and enjoyed reading your response.


> Please don't respond too quickly. I need time to decompress

Good thought, that. Feel the same way myself. Will take some time to digest things and mull them over. A welcome luxury in the discussion board context.

Deep waters, bra, and not unmuddy.

Cheers.

Mephisto,
Be warned, these people can wear you out with their nothingness. For a moment, I thought this might become an interesting and entertaining debate. Unfortunately, all they have to offer is scripture to quote, names to call you, trivial and banal issues like "Flat Earth" and "Abe Lincoln's religion" that no one even gives a shit about and endless circular logic.

They make no attempt to rationally dispute any pertinent claims I've made and they offer no explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma. In true inquisition form, they go right into baseless character accusations and scripture quoting.

In other blogs, I've had some pretty interesting debates with christians and theists, but you're not gonna get that here. The people defending creationism and religion here are pathetic and an embarrassment to their case.

You probably already knew all this, but if not, prepare yourself for line after line of nothingness.

Numbers wrote:
>You probably already knew all this, but if not, prepare yourself for line after line of nothingness.

ARE YOU REFERING TO YOUR OWN POSTS, you mindless and spineless douchebag???


By the way asshole,
That was a mighty WEAK retort!!!

I actually expected more from you 'Numbers', you CHICKENSHIT DEVIL WORSHIPER.




.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Here I am last night during a goat sacrifice. Tonight, I'm going to call on Satan to curse Troll@aol

I have something special planned for you.
Attachments:

Haha, jokes on you fool!

Satan is my sidekick, dummy.






.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They make no attempt to rationally dispute any
> pertinent claims I've made and they offer no
> explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma.
> In true inquisition form, they go right into
> baseless character accusations and scripture
> quoting.

I think Mr. Theophilus is nice. He's not being condescending, not being insulting, and has a clear understanding of what he's talking about. If either side takes an "I'm right, you're wrong" approach before the discussion even begins, there is no discussion.

Religion is a lot like politics; there's no absolute, 100% factual explanation for why one side is correct and one side is wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If either side takes an "I'm right, you're wrong"
> approach before the discussion even begins, there
> is no discussion.

I prefer to take an "I'm right or convince me" approach. If you don't think you're right about something, why enter the discussion other than to simply ask questions? This is the reason I don't discuss most politics in this forum. There are many others here more qualified to make points on all sides. I read most of them all and enjoy the ensuing shitstorm.

However, having been "in the business" for 25 years, I know a fair amount about religion and non-religion. That's not to say I'm right about everything, but until someone offers a lucid response to my position, I feel pretty good about it.

Mr. Theopolis has not addressed me in this thread, but I've read the posts between you two. He has indeed been gracious in his posts. I don't share his position on most of his points, but at least he's trying, whereas the others I've been dealing with don't even bother.



> Religion is a lot like politics; there's no
> absolute, 100% factual explanation for why one
> side is correct and one side is wrong.


I don't equate religion and politics at all, other than they are both corrupt beyond repair. Neither politics or religion requires 100% factual explanation. The difference is politics are verifiable in most cases (if one really wants to know), religion cannot be verified at all, by anyone, (no matter how much one wants to know). Time can often help clear the air on political issues when the people involved die, the records are released and the truth is revealed (in some cases). Religion, on the other hand, becomes even more blurry and once exposed to the gossip chain and politics, becomes indistinguishable.


I never saw politics as being between two sides, although it often seems that way. There are always at least 3 sides, left, right and the politician him/herself. Throw in all the outside agents affecting all 3 and you have a multi- dimensional quagmire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2010 09:16PM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mephisto,
> Be warned, these people can wear you out with
> their nothingness. For a moment, I thought this
> might become an interesting and entertaining
> debate. Unfortunately, all they have to offer is
> scripture to quote, names to call you, trivial and
> banal issues like "Flat Earth" and "Abe Lincoln's
> religion" that no one even gives a shit about and
> endless circular logic.
>
> They make no attempt to rationally dispute any
> pertinent claims I've made and they offer no
> explanations for inconsistencies in their dogma.
> In true inquisition form, they go right into
> baseless character accusations and scripture
> quoting.
>
> In other blogs, I've had some pretty interesting
> debates with christians and theists, but you're
> not gonna get that here. The people defending
> creationism and religion here are pathetic and an
> embarrassment to their case.
>
> You probably already knew all this, but if not,
> prepare yourself for line after line of
> nothingness.

Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have done is point out your spreading of myths and lies (which I have yet to see you recant) to promote your own atheist ethos, which is no different than any other fundamentalist. You seem to mistake me for someone that has a vested interest in defending organized religion. You couldn't be further from the truth. Point to one instance in which I supported creationism or any other simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said creationists are about as empty headed and self thinking as you are.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have done
> is point out your spreading of myths and lies

You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear (which I still don't buy), but what other "myths and lies" have I put forth?


> You seem to mistake me
> for someone that has a vested interest in
> defending organized religion. You couldn't be
> further from the truth.

Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point to in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a shit about anyway. Why would this even concern "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech than anything else and it doesn't make or break either position. Why are you so obsessed with Flat Earth?


> Point to one instance in
> which I supported creationism or any other
> simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said
> creationists are about as empty headed and self
> thinking as you are.


So tell us then, what are your views on the origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state your position and then expect anyone here to give you an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're just a troll and an amateur one at best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2010 10:33AM by Numbers.

people,
i implore you to cease this conversation as it's a waste of time.

you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

•Origin of the cosmos
•Gravity
•Conciousness

or here is an easy one, magnets. You find a scientist who has an indepth understanding about MAGNETS, a tangible object you can hold in your hand that is here on this planet. Because if you can NOT find me one scientist who has an understanding of a simple inanimate object like a fucking magnet and explain it to me clearly , then you can NOT tell me you or they have an understanding of the universe which we can NOT STUDY or touch and have ZERO comprehension of. Sorry even Einstein knew he relatively knew NOTHING about the balance of the universe. Hell look at what a marvel our bodies are, an infinately detailed and intricate system, that would be a crying shame to try and wish up its existance to be a wonderful fluke of chances in some primordial ooze. On that note lets not even begin talking about souls or spirits.

-yeah this all sounds like something you can make in a Science lab, have fun in HELL 'Numbers'.

Your stuborn simpleton attitude is really starting to make me laugh.
Unfortunately there may be no help for you. Some are destined to be blind, and that is thier role in life.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Gravis wrote:
>you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.



Ha, nice one!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.

Sure you can. Just put wheels and a motor on it, then ask politely.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Gravis,
I certainly didn't expect that my asking you a simple question would result in this 2 page troll feeding trough, but out of respect for your long tenure here at FFU, I will end my part in it now.

Yeah bail out, out of 'RESPECT'. What a fuckin' loser you are.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > you cannot convince a statue to run a marathon.
>
> Sure you can. Just put wheels and a motor on it,
> then ask politely.

i tried that already! as a fellow lizar-uhh... nevermind. >_>

---

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> out of respect for your long tenure here at FFU

dude, that's just retarded and not a reason to respect someone but thanks anyway. ;)

vince has been here a long time and i dont think people respect him which is likely due of his poor behavior.

please rethink your qualifications for respect. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Learn how to spell son.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> •Origin of the cosmos
> •Gravity
> •Conciousness
>
> or here is an easy one, magnets. You find a
> scientist who has an indepth understanding about
> MAGNETS, a tangible object you can hold in your
> hand that is here on this planet. Because if you
> can NOT find me one scientist who has an
> understanding of a simple inanimate object like a
> fucking magnet and explain it to me clearly , then
> you can NOT tell me you or they have an
> understanding of the universe which we can NOT
> STUDY or touch and have ZERO comprehension of.
> Sorry even Einstein knew he relatively knew
> NOTHING about the balance of the universe. Hell
> look at what a marvel our bodies are, an
> infinately detailed and intricate system, that
> would be a crying shame to try and wish up its
> existance to be a wonderful fluke of chances in
> some primordial ooze. On that note lets not even
> begin talking about souls or spirits.
>
> -yeah this all sounds like something you can make
> in a Science lab, have fun in HELL 'Numbers'.
>
> Your stuborn simpleton attitude is really starting
> to make me laugh.
> Unfortunately there may be no help for you. Some
> are destined to be blind, and that is thier role
> in life.

Okay, I'll learn to 'spell', and you learn how not to be a sorryass faggot devilworshiper that has multiple personalities and talks to his/(but more likely) herself. Now go on and get a life. Did I spell that correct you loser?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2 0 88 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have
> done
> > is point out your spreading of myths and lies
>
> You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear
> (which I still don't buy), but what other "myths
> and lies" have I put forth?

So, you are standing by the flat earth myth? You stand by the fact that ALL people of a religious persuasion refuse to get innoculations despite the fact that the inventor of modern day innoculations was a religious man? You spit in the face of all medical accomplihments that were made by followers of Islam (which were numerous by the way)?

BTW, I have actually known atheists that refuse to get their children innoculated for fear of autism.

> > You seem to mistake me
> > for someone that has a vested interest in
> > defending organized religion. You couldn't be
> > further from the truth.
>
> Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point to
> in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a
> shit about anyway. Why would this even concern
> "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech
> than anything else and it doesn't make or break
> either position. Why are you so obsessed with Flat
> Earth?

To the contrary. You are the one obsessed with ensuring your atheism is the enlightened view. No? You and your kind spread false rumors to support your tenuous position.

> > Point to one instance in
> > which I supported creationism or any other
> > simplistic view of the world. In fact, I said
> > creationists are about as empty headed and self
> > thinking as you are.
>
>
> So tell us then, what are your views on the
> origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just
> waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state your
> position and then expect anyone here to give you
> an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're
> just a troll and an amateur one at best.


Oh, so anyone that disagrees with the almighty Numbers MUST be a troll, right? You have cornered the market on intellectual superiority? My views? Well, I was raised a Christian, explored other religions, declared myself an atheist. What then? I realized every atheist I met was no different than any other religious fool I had encountered.

My conclusion? I don't know. If there is a higher being, so be it, if not, so be it. There is no proof of an existance and there is no way to disprove it. I am comfortable with my position. I don't discount the fact that there is a higher being and I don't discount there is not.

When atheists (like yourself), insult the intelligence of others that believe in a higher being, it only shows the limitations you have put upon yourself.

2 0 88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2 0 88 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Not once have I quoted scripture. All I have
> > done
> > > is point out your spreading of myths and lies
> >
> > You've made you're stance on Flat Earth clear
> > (which I still don't buy), but what other
> "myths
> > and lies" have I put forth?
>
> So, you are standing by the flat earth myth? You
> stand by the fact that ALL people of a religious
> persuasion refuse to get innoculations despite the
> fact that the inventor of modern day innoculations
> was a religious man? You spit in the face of all
> medical accomplihments that were made by followers
> of Islam (which were numerous by the way)?
>
> BTW, I have actually known atheists that refuse to
> get their children innoculated for fear of autism.
>
>
> > > You seem to mistake me
> > > for someone that has a vested interest in
> > > defending organized religion. You couldn't
> be
> > > further from the truth.
> >
> > Then why do you give a shit? All you ever point
> to
> > in the Flat Earth argument that no one gives a
> > shit about anyway. Why would this even concern
> > "atheists"? I see it as more a figure of speech
> > than anything else and it doesn't make or break
> > either position. Why are you so obsessed with
> Flat
> > Earth?
>
> To the contrary. You are the one obsessed with
> ensuring your atheism is the enlightened view. No?
> You and your kind spread false rumors to support
> your tenuous position.
>
> > > Point to one instance in
> > > which I supported creationism or any other
> > > simplistic view of the world. In fact, I
> said
> > > creationists are about as empty headed and
> self
> > > thinking as you are.
> >
> >
> > So tell us then, what are your views on the
> > origins of man and the cosmos? You can't just
> > waltz in here, criticize everyone, not state
> your
> > position and then expect anyone here to give
> you
> > an ounce of credibility. At this point, you're
> > just a troll and an amateur one at best.
>
>
> Oh, so anyone that disagrees with the almighty
> Numbers MUST be a troll, right? You have cornered
> the market on intellectual superiority? My views?
> Well, I was raised a Christian, explored other
> religions, declared myself an atheist. What then?
> I realized every atheist I met was no different
> than any other religious fool I had encountered.
>
>
> My conclusion? I don't know. If there is a
> higher being, so be it, if not, so be it. There
> is no proof of an existance and there is no way to
> disprove it. I am comfortable with my position.
> I don't discount the fact that there is a higher
> being and I don't discount there is not.
>
> When atheists (like yourself), insult the
> intelligence of others that believe in a higher
> being, it only shows the limitations you have put
> upon yourself.


Actually, this makes more sense than the nonsense I have seen around. So what if Numbers is right? So what if 2 0 88 is right? Are they mutually exclusive positions?