Naked Gonad wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:40:11 +0100, Naked Gonad
wrote:

Naked Gonad wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:05:52 -0400, alephtull
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:37:53 -0400, alephtull
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:11:07 -0400, alephtull
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:46:17 -0400, alephtull
wrote:

She is a ****ing religious nut. Anyone who's listened to her
talk thinks so, except for other religious nuts.
So what do you base your opinon on? A strong belief in God?

A belief in fairy tales about Adam and Eve over hard science.
Gee..then you think Liberals are nutcases too.
IF they take the Bible literally, yes.
Thats a pretty big If, isnt it? So Jesus didnt rise from the dead?
After all...its part of the Big Theology of Christianity. To be
Christian, you have to believe that bit of dogma. How about that
Virgin Birth thingy?

Or do you believe you are qualified to determine what Christians
should believe in, and what makes them nutcases?
The point you clearly already forgot, small brained one, is that
there is irrefutable proof of evolution ongoing. So people who
choose to believe in fairy tales in the face of irrefutable
scientific proof are in fact, deluded nuts in my book. If you wish
to think of them as rational people, that's your decision.
So Evolution is a scientific fact, rather than a theory?
Odd..most reputable scientists disagree with you.

Now..is there some reason you refused to answer the question I posed
to you?
All of the the other big bible claims you threw out just now have
not been irrefutably been proven wrong by science, and probably
never will be, so as improbable as they may seem to a rational
person, I don't think people who choose to believe in them are
necessarily nuts. Maybe just a little naive.
So they have not been disproven. And yet, you are sure they they are
false. And your evidence is what again? Still waiting for your CV
btw and an answer to the question about your qualifications.
And your CV is what exactly?
Then that would include 80% of the American public, and of
course most
Leftwing Politicians and their syncophants.
Most mainstream Christians are able to separate their faith
from ridiculous ancient myths.
Blink blink.....snicker...did you actually read what you just
wrote?
I did. Do you read much of anything these days? There are plenty
of people of faith out there admitting the Bible isn't literally
true.
The Entire Bible, or just parts you consider to be fairy tales?
We're talking about other people's opinions now, Gungadin, not
mine. Try to keep up.
No..we are exactly talking about your opinion. Since you are unable to
provide facts.
I have heard many contemporary Christians acknowledge the bible is
not to be taken literally. Usually they say this in reference to
genesis and the rather oppressive laws of Exodus and leviticus. In
order to know what other parts they've amended their thinking on,
you'd have to be asking them, not me.
So you are claiming then that only parts of the Bible are false.
Fascinating. And your CV is what again?

And
your CV is what again?
One would assume you are also calling the Rev Jesse Jackson, Al
Sharpton, etc etc all religious nuts, is that correct?
I just think of them as ****ty human beings. I don't know what
they really believe in, other than money and camera time.
At least we can agree on something.
Pretty lame and obvious attempt to corner me. Want to go for
it and actually defend those creeps to everyone? I'm sure you
must love them.
Why would I? Im not a Christian.
Lot's of people who love them aren't Christian either. So why
did you bring them up if you weren't prepared to defend them?
(I already pointed out the answer, but go ahead and fumble.)

No..you pointed out your opinion. Which of course is hardly worth
warm
spit. Communists, Liberals, Marxists, Trotskyists and so forth
often
love those mentioned above. Black Muslims as well. Yet you obvously
believe they are nutcases, if they claim to be Christians. Or on
your
planet, there is some form of secular humanism that calls itself
Christian?
Yes, Gumdrop, thank you for confirming what I already said. You
ASSumed what my viewpoints were and therefore lost the argument.
Actually old sod..you pretty much gave us your viewpoints and an
insight into your megolomania. Your opinion as Fact.
Or are you simply a hypocrit and feel that Lefties who
believe in God
are ok, but those on the Right are not?
And watch the Gunntard come skidding in for a landing without
his gear down.
Your attempt to weasel is again noted.
I've given nothing but direct and clear answers to you. Attempt
to spin and lie noted.
Your attempt to spin and lie is very well noted as is your
attempt to
deflect.
Boring alert.
Attempt to deflect noted.
Once again, you lose an argument because you assume you know
what other people's opinions are and you cannonball
spectacularly onto your own pungi sticks.

Pretty pathetic, Gunther
Alphanull...I was thinking the same about you.
No you weren't, but it seemed like a good comeback at the time.
Actually, I was thinking you were a poor pathetic loser, a mind
numbed
droid.
Redundancy noted. Time to get your coat and leave now. You've
nothing left to add here.
Inability to refute is noted with amusement.
Pretty pathetic indeed.
Which part?
Everything you wrote.
Get back on your meds. Its for the children

Take your meds

Gunner

So you dont care about the children. Not surprising, given your
obvious megolomania

Athiesm, just another faith based belief system

Gunner
By the very nature of Atheism,it has no faith or beliefs.

Gonad
Unless you are recategorising "Atheism"?

Gonad


See previous post of a few moments ago.

Gunner

Atheist definition in my dictionary:

Someone who denies the existence of a god.

Gonad

There are two meanings of atheist.

The one you give meats Runner's definition of a faith. His problem is
that he doesn't handle multiple meanings very well; he puts all his eggs
in one basket, but doesn't watch that basket very well...

The other definition is someone without faith in a god. This is not
faith-based, and is rational (think Missouri).

Dan