Posted by Rich the Philosophizer on February 11, 2008, 8:51 pm
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:30:42 -0800, David V. wrote:
> At least it's real. Gods aren't.
And your proof of this is?
Thanks,
Rich
Posted by Christopher A. Lee on February 11, 2008, 8:59 pm
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:51:50 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:30:42 -0800, David V. wrote:
>> At least it's real. Gods aren't.
>And your proof of this is?
For fuck's sake.
What part of FALSIFIABLE CONCLUSION are you too stupid to understand?
Here's a clue: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
>Thanks,
>Rich
Posted by Rich the Philosophizer on February 12, 2008, 9:01 pm
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:59:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:51:50 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:30:42 -0800, David V. wrote:
>>
>>> At least it's real. Gods aren't.
>>
>>And your proof of this is?
>
> For fuck's sake.
>
> What part of FALSIFIABLE CONCLUSION are you too stupid to understand?
>
> Here's a clue: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
So, essentially, you're saying, "I don't believe in gods, therefore
they don't exist", and considering it a proof?
Well, maybe they don't in your little pocket of "reality." )-;
Good Luck!
Rich
Posted by Christopher A. Lee on February 12, 2008, 9:16 pm
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:01:06 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:59:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:51:50 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>>>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:30:42 -0800, David V. wrote:
>>>
>>>> At least it's real. Gods aren't.
>>>
>>>And your proof of this is?
>>
>> For fuck's sake.
>>
>> What part of FALSIFIABLE CONCLUSION are you too stupid to understand?
>>
>> Here's a clue: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
>So, essentially, you're saying, "I don't believe in gods, therefore
>they don't exist", and considering it a proof?
Where did I say it was, moron?
Another lying theists puts words into people's mouths he knows they
didn't say.
Are there any honest theists?
We certainly don't get tham in the atheist newsgroups.
>Well, maybe they don't in your little pocket of "reality." )-;
>Good Luck!
>Rich
Posted by David V. on February 13, 2008, 12:47 am
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:01:06 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>
>
>>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:59:40 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 01:51:50 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:30:42 -0800, David V. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>At least it's real. Gods aren't.
>>>>
>>>>And your proof of this is?
>>>
>>>For fuck's sake.
>>>
>>>What part of FALSIFIABLE CONCLUSION are you too stupid to understand?
>>>
>>>Here's a clue: they're merely part of somebody else's religion.
>>
>>So, essentially, you're saying, "I don't believe in gods, therefore
>>they don't exist", and considering it a proof?
>
>
> Where did I say it was, moron?
>
> Another lying theists puts words into people's mouths he knows they
> didn't say.
>
> Are there any honest theists?
>
> We certainly don't get tham in the atheist newsgroups.
For a guy that claims to be a philosophizer, he's not very
bright, nor philosophic.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman