Free Speech
FSA Ticket | Today | Join | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
FSA > Theology and Spirtuality > This life and the after life Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Tomlapaz
  • From:USA

Date Posted:01-04-2018 06:27:08Copy HTML

A descendant of David was born in Bethlehem (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Micah), died for the sins of his people and raised from the dead (as foretold by the Jewish prophet Isaiah and Jewish King David), 2000 years ago (in the time as foretold by the Jewish prophet Daniel). And because of this descendant of David, men and women everywhere have the means of finding peace with the Creator of the heavens and the earth. The forgiveness of sins.

Come worship Jesus, born King of the Jews.
Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #721
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:27-07-2018 12:03:52Copy HTML

Wale, he's not "defending" anything.  He is mocking you.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #722
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-09-2018 09:29:01Copy HTML

Wale, he's not "defending" anything.  He is mocking you.


Skdummy mocks HIMSELF as he HAS to distort words to make his presentation seem credible!

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #723
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:23-09-2018 11:51:18Copy HTML

...
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #724
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 12:53:17Copy HTML

Tell me which of Freud's and Einstein's words have I distorted Wale. Ready go! Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind: "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with. Baruch Spinoza - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do. Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #725
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 12:56:45Copy HTML

Yep...I agree wholeheartedly with Einstein...'Im more in line with Spinoza's god. Wale remains the feeble childish character described by Einstein, fearful of superstition as described by Spinoza, and obsessional neurotic as described by Freud. These are the people he is using to make his case that his God is real. You really cannot make up that kind of stupidity. Let me go out on a limb and guess that Wale's entire response will be to call me skdummy and avoid addressing the reality above altogether. Fucking moron.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #726
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 01:48:50Copy HTML

Tell me which of Freud's and Einstein's words have  I distorted Wale. Ready go! Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind:  "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.  No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with. Baruch Spinoza  - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do. Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.


YOU have said there is NO reality of God. Einstein holds back a little and recognizes man cannot comprehend the expanse of the universe, unlike YOU.

SKDUMMY, you keep going in circles as if somehow, the tenth time you attempt this childsh tactic will somehow make your words somehow true, and they aren't skdummy!

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #727
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 09:16:59Copy HTML

There is no "reality" of God you poor idiot. That is why it is called "FAITH". Google the definition of "faith" if you are indeed that stupid. This does not mean there may not be a god. I have explained this to you about 50 times, and still, you are so pathetically stupid you come back with the same tired beaten words. I have ALWAYS agreed with Einstein that we cannot comprehend the universe. I have also stated this about 50 times. Perhaps you have a grade schooler in your home who can help you come to grips with these facts. My words don't need to be true. I am using Freud's, Einstein's and Spinoza's words to make you look like an idiot....as if I would need any help at all. Have you got any actual rebuttal to my post below? Go to the link and read about Spinoza who Einstein mentions. These are my beliefs as well. I am in complete 100% alignment with Einstein, Freud and Spinoza...…..How about you? Do you agree with them that you are an idiot? They call you and people like you feeble superstitious fools. Try again. This time, dare I say, try an actual rebuttal. If you know a 6th grader, they could help you form one that is 4-5 grade levels above yourself. ________________________ Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind: "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with. Baruch Spinoza - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do. Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise. ___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #728
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 12:56:02Copy HTML

There is no "reality" of God you poor idiot.  That is why it is called "FAITH".  Google the definition of "faith" if you are indeed that stupid. This does not mean there may not be a god.  I have explained this to you about 50 times, and still, you are so pathetically stupid you come back with the same tired beaten words. I have ALWAYS agreed with Einstein that we cannot comprehend the universe.  I have also stated this about 50 times.  Perhaps you have a grade schooler in your home who can help you come to grips with these facts. My words don't need to be true.  I am using Freud's, Einstein's and Spinoza's words to make you look like an idiot....as if I would need any help at all. Have you got any actual rebuttal to my post below?  Go to the link and read about Spinoza who Einstein mentions.   These are my beliefs as well.   I am in complete 100% alignment with Einstein, Freud and Spinoza...…..How about you?  Do you agree with them that you are an idiot?  They call you and people like you feeble superstitious fools. Try again.  This time, dare I say, try an actual rebuttal.  If you know a 6th grader, they could help you form one that is 4-5 grade levels above yourself. ________________________ Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind:  "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.  No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with. Baruch Spinoza  - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do. Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise. ___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?


The ONLY words you are using to point out an idiot are YOUR words to point out yourself as a juvenile, imbecilic idiot. You have done a good job too!

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #729
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 05:35:13Copy HTML

There is no "reality" of God you poor idiot.  That is why it is called "FAITH".  Google the definition of "faith" if you are indeed that stupid.


This does not mean there may not be a god.  I have explained this to you about 50 times, and still, you are so pathetically stupid you come back with the same tired beaten words. I have ALWAYS agreed with Einstein that we cannot comprehend the universe.  I have also stated this about 50 times.  Perhaps you have a grade schooler in your home who can help you come to grips with these facts.


My words don't need to be true.  I am using Freud's, Einstein's and Spinoza's words to make you look like an idiot....as if I would need any help at all.


Have you got any actual rebuttal to my post below?  Go to the link and read about Spinoza who Einstein mentions.   These are my beliefs as well.   I am in complete 100% alignment with Einstein, Freud and Spinoza...…..How about you?  Do you agree with them that you are an idiot?  They call you and people like you feeble superstitious fools.


Try again.  This time, dare I say, try an actual rebuttal.  If you know a 6th grader, they could help you form one that is 4-5 grade levels above yourself.

________________________


Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind:  "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.  No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."


Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with.


Baruch Spinoza  - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc


Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do.


Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.


___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?



Apparently, Wale has nothing to say about that.

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #730
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:24-09-2018 11:29:55Copy HTML

Apparently, Wale has nothing to say about that. ___________ Sure he did. He said this: "The ONLY words you are using to point out an idiot are YOUR words to point out yourself as a juvenile, imbecilic idiot. You have dine a good job too!" Wale is great debater. His strategy is to ignore the post, ignore the factual quotes, ignore the links about Spinoza, Einstein and Freud….and insult the guy who is making you look like an idiot. Argument by 3rd grade insult. How is that working out? lol
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #731
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 12:53:32Copy HTML

There is no "reality" of God you poor idiot.  That is why it is called "FAITH".  Google the definition of "faith" if you are indeed that stupid.


This does not mean there may not be a god.  I have explained this to you about 50 times, and still, you are so pathetically stupid you come back with the same tired beaten words. I have ALWAYS agreed with Einstein that we cannot comprehend the universe.  I have also stated this about 50 times.  Perhaps you have a grade schooler in your home who can help you come to grips with these facts.


My words don't need to be true.  I am using Freud's, Einstein's and Spinoza's words to make you look like an idiot....as if I would need any help at all.


Have you got any actual rebuttal to my post below?  Go to the link and read about Spinoza who Einstein mentions.   These are my beliefs as well.   I am in complete 100% alignment with Einstein, Freud and Spinoza...…..How about you?  Do you agree with them that you are an idiot?  They call you and people like you feeble superstitious fools.


Try again.  This time, dare I say, try an actual rebuttal.  If you know a 6th grader, they could help you form one that is 4-5 grade levels above yourself.

________________________


Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind:  "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.  No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."


Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with.


Baruch Spinoza  - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc


Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do.


Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.


___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?



Apparently, Wale has nothing to say about that.


I see you guys are now conversing with each other. What are YOUR names, Neal and Bob, or is that what you do with each other?

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #732
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 12:54:11Copy HTML

There is no "reality" of God you poor idiot.  That is why it is called "FAITH".  Google the definition of "faith" if you are indeed that stupid.


This does not mean there may not be a god.  I have explained this to you about 50 times, and still, you are so pathetically stupid you come back with the same tired beaten words. I have ALWAYS agreed with Einstein that we cannot comprehend the universe.  I have also stated this about 50 times.  Perhaps you have a grade schooler in your home who can help you come to grips with these facts.


My words don't need to be true.  I am using Freud's, Einstein's and Spinoza's words to make you look like an idiot....as if I would need any help at all.


Have you got any actual rebuttal to my post below?  Go to the link and read about Spinoza who Einstein mentions.   These are my beliefs as well.   I am in complete 100% alignment with Einstein, Freud and Spinoza...…..How about you?  Do you agree with them that you are an idiot?  They call you and people like you feeble superstitious fools.


Try again.  This time, dare I say, try an actual rebuttal.  If you know a 6th grader, they could help you form one that is 4-5 grade levels above yourself.

________________________


Sigmund Freud: Freud suggests that religion and neurosis are similar products of the human mind:  "neurosis, with its compulsive behavior", is "an individual religiosity", and religion, with its repetitive rituals, is a "universal obsessional neurosis. Einstein says "the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.  No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."


Here is the God that Einstein and I find more aligned with.


Baruch Spinoza  - https://www.google.nl/search?source=hp&ei=uTSoW9rtIYSKvQT53af4Cw&q=spinoza&oq=spinoza&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.713.2109.0.2422.7.6.0.1.1.0.349.469.0j1j0j1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..4.3.503....0.pKTmh_kloxc


Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do.


Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.


___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?



Apparently, Wale has nothing to say about that.


I see you guys are now conversing with each other. What are YOUR names, Neal and Bob, or is that what you do with each other?

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #733
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 02:59:44Copy HTML

...
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #734
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 04:45:32Copy HTML

I see you guys are now conversing with each other. What are YOUR names, Neal and Bob, or is that what you do with each other? ___ I see you are conversing with the voices in your head. Do you ever tire of acting like a 6 year old. Rhetorical. How about an actual response like an adult might make? I understand you cannot since you lose before you try, but thought Id ask for the 100th time just to watch you squirm and wriggle out of debate by insinuating sexual acts. Don't you agree with Spinoza here....Einstein and I do. Spinoza immediately reveals the objective of his attack. His definition of God—condemned since his excommunication from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the scholium to proposition fifteen, he writes against “those who feign a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established by what has already been demonstrated.” Besides being false, such an anthropomorphic conception of God standing as judge over us can have only deleterious effects on human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise. ___ What say you about Spinoza's god and Einstein's and Freuds position about your religion?
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #735
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 08:36:17Copy HTML

25 pages of childish sexual innuendos that Wale believes substitutes as debate. It is our fault. The only way to wrestle a pig and not get dirty is to not wrestle it.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #736
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 04:35:55Copy HTML

25 pages of childish sexual innuendos that Wale believes substitutes as debate.  It is our fault. The only way to wrestle a pig and not get dirty is to not wrestle it.


And yet, skdummy, YOU especially, keep coming back for more still looking for some kind of validation!

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #737
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 05:24:24Copy HTML

...
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #738
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 07:20:29Copy HTML

Wales sole tactic is to argue by insult. He obviously can’t argue a topic. Arguing by childish insult is very convincing. We are all convinced he is 8 years old.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
Yobbo Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #739
  • From:New_zealand

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 08:12:33Copy HTML

Wales sole tactic is to argue by insult.  He obviously can’t argue a topic.  Arguing by childish insult is very convincing.  We are all convinced he is 8 years old.


His "arguments" tend to scream "closet queer" as far as I can discern.

"Les hommes ne font jamais le mal si complètement et joyeusement que lorsqu'ils le font par conviction religieuse." Blaise Pascal
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #740
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 08:31:27Copy HTML

Wales sole tactic is to argue by insult.  He obviously can’t argue a topic.  Arguing by childish insult is very convincing.  We are all convinced he is 8 years old.


" As opposed to my, skdummy, using the F word against ANYONE who doesn't accept my stupid statements"-SKDUMMY

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #741
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 08:32:23Copy HTML

Wales sole tactic is to argue by insult.  He obviously can’t argue a topic.  Arguing by childish insult is very convincing.  We are all convinced he is 8 years old.


His "arguments" tend to scream "closet queer" as far as I can discern.


THAT is because you really are an idiot an thus only arrive at idiotc conslusions!

Bogus0Pomp Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #742
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 09:58:17Copy HTML

...
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z "If you can read these 26 letters, there is nothing about the universe that you can't learn." -- Lambros D. Callimoahos
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #743
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:25-09-2018 11:07:01Copy HTML

" As opposed to my, skdummy, using the F word against ANYONE who doesn't accept my stupid statements"-SKDUMMY ——— Yes I use the f word. By to clarify: I use science in my arguments with you about evolution or genetics behind homosexuality. Punlidhed Peter reviewed scientific literature. You ignore science and call me names as your sole response. I rightly call that fucking stupid I use the exact quotes of Einstein, Freud or Spinoza that say you and your religion is for the weak-minded. You ignore it and call me names. I rightly call you a fucking moron. This is how it works.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #744
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:26-09-2018 01:39:22Copy HTML

" As opposed to my, skdummy, using the F word against ANYONE who doesn't accept my stupid statements"-SKDUMMY

Yes I use the f word.  By to clarify: I use science in my arguments with you about evolution or genetics behind homosexuality.  Punlidhed Peter reviewed scientific literature.   You ignore science and call me names as your sole response.   I rightly call that fucking stupid I use the exact quotes of Einstein, Freud or Spinoza that say you and your religion is for the weak-minded. You ignore it and call me names.   I rightly call you a fucking moron. This is how it works.


SKDUMMY a NUMBER of POINTS since you miss them , FREQUENTLY:

1- You use the F-word WITH ANYONE who doesn';t accept your nonsense, so YOU LOSE because you must resort to the F word.

2- You TWIST the science to distort it to your maldajusted view

3- You are labeled as you are merited!

YOU ARE A CONTINUAL IMBECILE AND IDIOT, That's how it works!!.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #745
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:26-09-2018 02:52:59Copy HTML

Ok we are getting somewhere. I twist the science. Give an example. Be specific. You want to go back to evolution, or genetics? Here is how it works with adults little boy. I provide peer reviewed scientific citations to back up claims. You say I twist the science. What is missing is your argument. An argument would be an explanation of how I twist the science along with your scientific evidence that indicates I twist the science Ready go. Or have you been responding with childish insults so long you can’t recall the science we discussed. Do you need me to help you find it?
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #746
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:26-09-2018 02:59:25Copy HTML

I’ll help you. You made this claim on page 3. Wale: Evolution is NOT fact not matter how much you cry and scream. —-// I responded with this. I have posted many times the actual recorded direct observations of evolution taking place. The fact of evolution. I will do so again to demonstrate you are the one crying and screaming "no it isn't" without posting a single piece of evidence that counters the data I have posted...and I am posting the facts. You are doing all the "crying and screaming" https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/04/direct-observations-of-evolution/ https://www.thoughtco.com/observation-and-evidence-for-evolution-249895 https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896 You failed to respond how the direct observations of evolution happening were not fact. I am giving you another chance to present an actual argument. Your move.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #747
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:27-09-2018 01:40:18Copy HTML

...


"Three dots represents my lack of intellect"-BOGUSPUMPED

wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #748
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:27-09-2018 01:42:51Copy HTML

I’ll help you.   You made this claim on page 3.  

Wale: Evolution is NOT fact not matter how much you cry and scream.

I(skdummy) responded with this.   I have posted many times the actual recorded direct observations of evolution taking place.  The fact of evolution.  I will do so again to demonstrate you are the one crying and screaming "no it isn't" without posting a single piece of evidence that counters the data I have posted...and I am posting the facts. You are doing all the "crying and screaming" https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/04/direct-observations-of-evolution/ https://www.thoughtco.com/observation-and-evidence-for-evolution-249895 https://www.thoughtco.com/how-evolution-has-been-observed-249896 You failed to respond how the direct observations of evolution happening were not fact.   I am giving you another chance to present an actual argument.  Your move.


Evolution is NOT fact not matter how much you cry and scream. Science isn't determined by majority vote and the FACT remains that the definitive piece of the puzzle has NOT been found as yet.

skwanderer Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #749
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:27-09-2018 04:34:34Copy HTML

I agree completely science is not determined by vote.  Your screaming and crying of your “vote” is irrelevant. Science is determined by science....you know, the facts I presented and you avoid or are otherwise unable to refute in any way. Page 25. 749 posts Sum total of Wale rebuttals = 0

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Albert Einstein
wale63 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #750
  • From:USA

Re:Resurrection Sunday

Date Posted:27-09-2018 12:57:06Copy HTML

I agree completely science is not determined by vote.  Your screaming and crying of your “vote” is irrelevant. Science is determined by science....you know, the facts I presented and you avoid or are otherwise unable to refute in any way. Page 25. 749 posts Sum total of Wale rebuttals = 0


YES and the FACT rem,ains there is no single piece of evidence that confirms evolution skdummy!

Copyright © 2000-2018 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.