Happy New Year

[Ronnie Rodent]

To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!

I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL

Thanks Ronnie. Maybe this year you might grow some balls and say whether
transubstantiation is nonsense or not. LOL

Naw. That would be a miracle! :)

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over
Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP
calm
down in January! LOL

Thanks Ronnie. Maybe this year you might grow some balls and
say whether
transubstantiation is nonsense or not. LOL

Maybe you could grow some balls and drop your pathological
obsession with religion.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL

Thanks Ronnie. Maybe this year you might grow some balls and say whether
transubstantiation is nonsense or not. LOL

Maybe you could grow some balls and drop your pathological obsession with religion.

Gee Carter, how can we hope that religion will go away if we must be quiet so that
the foolishness of religious believers will never be exposed. Believers have lots
or opportunities to dispute and defend their beliefs. The fact that they cannot does
not mean that I must refrain from showing religion for what it is for fear of upsetting
those who believe stuff without evidence.

How about you Carter? Will you say that transubstantiation is nonsense?

[Ronnie Rodent]

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over
Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL

Thanks Ronnie. Maybe this year you might grow some balls and
say whether
transubstantiation is nonsense or not. LOL

Maybe you could grow some balls and drop your pathological
obsession with religion.

Jimmy just likes to whine that nobody will discuss religion with him.

Can't seem to understand that he has burned that bridge with his
attitude.

I don't think Jimmy would get it if you tattooed it on his forehead!

LOL

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by Ronnie Rodent

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over
Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL

Thanks Ronnie. Maybe this year you might grow some balls and
say whether
transubstantiation is nonsense or not. LOL

Maybe you could grow some balls and drop your pathological
obsession with religion.

Jimmy just likes to whine that nobody will discuss religion with him.
Can't seem to understand that he has burned that bridge with his
attitude.
I don't think Jimmy would get it if you tattooed it on his forehead!
LOL

Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?

As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.

[[e-mail]]

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.

Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it means to debate.

[jvangurp]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

[James Warren]

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

She also totally misses the point that belief in an entity requires evidence for that
entity. In the absence of evidence disbelief is the default. The burden of proof for
the existence of an entity rests with he who proclaims its existence. Not being 100% sure
that there are no gods is not a reason to believe in them. That's just nonsense.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

Trust you Gurpy!

[[e-mail]]

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

[jvangurp]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

Yes I'm serious and I'm puzzled (but pleased) that you find it funny. I know for sure that gods are all just made up imaginary concepts. The same with heaven and the notion of a soul and an afterlife and reincarnation. We're just sacks of meat with an amazing electricity and chemical blob called a brain that makes it all work. When the brain dies that's the end of the sack of meat and the former person. I also know there's absolutely no 'purpose' to life other than the biological imperative of genetic material to duplicate itself through natural selection. I'm 100% positive of all these truths.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

Yes I'm serious and I'm puzzled (but pleased) that you find it funny. I know for sure that gods are all just made up imaginary concepts. The same with heaven and the notion of a soul and an afterlife and reincarnation. We're just sacks of meat with an amazing electricity and chemical blob called a brain that makes it all work. When the brain dies that's the end of the sack of meat and the former person. I also know there's absolutely no 'purpose' to life other than the biological imperative of genetic material to duplicate itself through natural selection. I'm 100% positive of all these truths.

Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

Yes I'm serious and I'm puzzled (but pleased) that you find it funny. I know for sure that gods are all just made up imaginary concepts. The same with heaven and the notion of a soul and an afterlife and reincarnation. We're just sacks of meat with an amazing electricity and chemical blob called a brain that makes it all work. When the brain dies that's the end of the sack of meat and the former person. I also know there's absolutely no 'purpose' to life other than the biological imperative of genetic material to duplicate itself through natural selection. I'm 100% positive of all these truths.

Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

[l***@fl.it]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:57:41 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

Yes I'm serious and I'm puzzled (but pleased) that you find it funny. I know for sure that gods are all just made up imaginary concepts. The same with heaven and the notion of a soul and an afterlife and reincarnation. We're just sacks of meat with an amazing electricity and chemical blob called a brain that makes it all work. When the brain dies that's the end of the sack of meat and the former person. I also know there's absolutely no 'purpose' to life other than the biological imperative of genetic material to duplicate itself through natural selection. I'm 100% positive of all these truths.

Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

But are you biased ?

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 12:57:41 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by jvangurp

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I know with 100% certainty that there are no gods.

ROTFL. I can't decide if you're serious or just mimicking James but you're funny nonetheless. :-)

Yes I'm serious and I'm puzzled (but pleased) that you find it funny. I know for sure that gods are all just made up imaginary concepts. The same with heaven and the notion of a soul and an afterlife and reincarnation. We're just sacks of meat with an amazing electricity and chemical blob called a brain that makes it all work. When the brain dies that's the end of the sack of meat and the former person. I also know there's absolutely no 'purpose' to life other than the biological imperative of genetic material to duplicate itself through natural selection. I'm 100% positive of all these truths.

Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

But are you biased ?

I am biased towards rationality and evidence based belief.
Is that really biased. If so, then tell me why irrationality
and belief without evidence is better.

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)

Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)

Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

[Ronnie Rodent]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Hence he has no credibility.

Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.

LOL

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

So, is transubstantiation nonsense or not?

On what basis is belief in transubstantiation rational?
It is a fair question that believers ought to be able to answer.

[jvangurp]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[l***@fl.it]

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

Of course it's cannibalistic. For Protestants it's only symbolic, for RCs
it's literally true through the magic transubstantiation. Many religions,
including Christianity, derive from human sacrifice beliefs. The remnants
of this are preserved today in transubstantiation.

What is curious is that none of the believers here will say whether or not
transubstantiation is nonsense. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded that
being religious means having to believe is some pretty silly things. They
attack the messenger rather than addressing the message. I think it means
they can't handle the truth. It's certainly the case with the Rodent. LOL

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to
prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods
that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

Of course it's cannibalistic. For Protestants it's only symbolic, for RCs
it's literally true through the magic transubstantiation. Many religions,
including Christianity, derive from human sacrifice beliefs. The remnants
of this are preserved today in transubstantiation.
What is curious is that none of the believers here will say whether or not
transubstantiation is nonsense. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded that
being religious means having to believe is some pretty silly things. They
attack the messenger rather than addressing the message. I think it means
they can't handle the truth. It's certainly the case with the Rodent. LOL

I grew up a Catholic (as did you, James, if I recall correctly.)
We both left the church (again, if I recall your posts of some years ago
correctly.) I have no opinion on transubstantiation.** I'd like to
think that with the maturity and wisdom that comes with age, we realise
that we are not so conceited as to think we understand everything.

I'm not a Mr Spock, and Vulcans are unlikely to exist. Hence my
beliefs are not 100% based on logic and evidence. I listen to it all,
and like all agnostics, I simple say to myself, "Who knows?"

I guess it's AA season, so these yearly salvoes against religion
were to be expected. Odd. Religious believers are always angry at
atheists and atheists are always angry at religious believers. Why do
we need the anger to try to prove the unprovable? Why mock others for
their beliefs? What is to be gained except enemies?

** Unless you call this an opinion: I believe we do not even know
0.0001% of the meaning of life, and we understand even less of the
universe. Hence any opinion on *anything* is simply based on what our
extremely limited senses can observe and describe. I don't have enough
real evidence to opine on transubstantiation one way or the other. All
I can say is that atheists make a good case against it, while knowing no
more than anyone else. But they sure get angry in the winter! :-)

[l***@fl.it]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:41:32 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to
prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods
that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

Of course it's cannibalistic. For Protestants it's only symbolic, for RCs
it's literally true through the magic transubstantiation. Many religions,
including Christianity, derive from human sacrifice beliefs. The remnants
of this are preserved today in transubstantiation.
What is curious is that none of the believers here will say whether or not
transubstantiation is nonsense. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded that
being religious means having to believe is some pretty silly things. They
attack the messenger rather than addressing the message. I think it means
they can't handle the truth. It's certainly the case with the Rodent. LOL

I grew up a Catholic (as did you, James, if I recall correctly.)
We both left the church (again, if I recall your posts of some years ago
correctly.) I have no opinion on transubstantiation.** I'd like to
think that with the maturity and wisdom that comes with age, we realise
that we are not so conceited as to think we understand everything.
I'm not a Mr Spock, and Vulcans are unlikely to exist. Hence my
beliefs are not 100% based on logic and evidence. I listen to it all,
and like all agnostics, I simple say to myself, "Who knows?"
I guess it's AA season, so these yearly salvoes against religion
were to be expected. Odd. Religious believers are always angry at
atheists and atheists are always angry at religious believers. Why do
we need the anger to try to prove the unprovable? Why mock others for
their beliefs? What is to be gained except enemies?
** Unless you call this an opinion: I believe we do not even know
0.0001% of the meaning of life, and we understand even less of the
universe. Hence any opinion on *anything* is simply based on what our
extremely limited senses can observe and describe. I don't have enough
real evidence to opine on transubstantiation one way or the other. All
I can say is that atheists make a good case against it, while knowing no
more than anyone else. But they sure get angry in the winter! :-)

Hey I'm an atheist ! I just typed a post at length but it seemingly
went off into the ether, so won't repeat in case it turns up. I did
notice and clarify in it that by JW I wasn't sure whether that was
James Warren or Jehovahs Witness, interesting co-incidence anyway :)

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:41:32 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to
prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods
that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

Of course it's cannibalistic. For Protestants it's only symbolic, for RCs
it's literally true through the magic transubstantiation. Many religions,
including Christianity, derive from human sacrifice beliefs. The remnants
of this are preserved today in transubstantiation.
What is curious is that none of the believers here will say whether or not
transubstantiation is nonsense. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded that
being religious means having to believe is some pretty silly things. They
attack the messenger rather than addressing the message. I think it means
they can't handle the truth. It's certainly the case with the Rodent. LOL

I grew up a Catholic (as did you, James, if I recall correctly.)
We both left the church (again, if I recall your posts of some years ago
correctly.) I have no opinion on transubstantiation.** I'd like to
think that with the maturity and wisdom that comes with age, we realise
that we are not so conceited as to think we understand everything.
I'm not a Mr Spock, and Vulcans are unlikely to exist. Hence my
beliefs are not 100% based on logic and evidence. I listen to it all,
and like all agnostics, I simple say to myself, "Who knows?"
I guess it's AA season, so these yearly salvoes against religion
were to be expected. Odd. Religious believers are always angry at
atheists and atheists are always angry at religious believers. Why do
we need the anger to try to prove the unprovable? Why mock others for
their beliefs? What is to be gained except enemies?
** Unless you call this an opinion: I believe we do not even know
0.0001% of the meaning of life, and we understand even less of the
universe. Hence any opinion on *anything* is simply based on what our
extremely limited senses can observe and describe. I don't have enough
real evidence to opine on transubstantiation one way or the other. All
I can say is that atheists make a good case against it, while knowing no
more than anyone else. But they sure get angry in the winter! :-)

Hey I'm an atheist ! I just typed a post at length but it seemingly
went off into the ether, so won't repeat in case it turns up. I did
notice and clarify in it that by JW I wasn't sure whether that was
James Warren or Jehovahs Witness, interesting co-incidence anyway :)

My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

[l***@fl.it]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:01:01 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
Hey I'm an atheist ! I just typed a post at length but it seemingly
went off into the ether, so won't repeat in case it turns up. I did
notice and clarify in it that by JW I wasn't sure whether that was
James Warren or Jehovahs Witness, interesting co-incidence anyway :)

My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

Well perhaps it would be but you flood it with anti-religion posts,
anything gets boring after awhile you know !

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 13:01:01 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it
Hey I'm an atheist ! I just typed a post at length but it seemingly
went off into the ether, so won't repeat in case it turns up. I did
notice and clarify in it that by JW I wasn't sure whether that was
James Warren or Jehovahs Witness, interesting co-incidence anyway :)

My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

Well perhaps it would be but you flood it with anti-religion posts,
anything gets boring after awhile you know !

Perhaps you can out-flood me with something you find interesting. :)

I find the silly things that people easily believe without question
very interesting. Most of these things pertain to religion.

[me]

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she
brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion
(or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be *discussed*
with people who demonstrate the close mindedness you do
concerning religion.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be *discussed* with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded? I am always open to evidence. Got any?

Is transubstantiation nonsense?

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion
(or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be *discussed*
with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be *discussed* with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless
she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to
discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be
*discussed* with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence.
Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on
religion are set in concrete and you are unwilling to accept any
views but your own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste
of time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion
with you. I strongly suggest that, before you lose any
credibility you have left, you quit the constant harping about
religion.

[Ronnie Rodent]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless >>>>> she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to >>>>> discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be >>>> *discussed*
with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. > Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion
are set in concrete and you are unwilling to accept any views but your
own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of time and energy for
anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest
that, before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

That ship sailed, hit an iceberg and sank long ago.

[James Warren]

Post by Ronnie Rodent

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless >>>>> she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to >>>>> discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be >>>> *discussed*
with people who demonstrate the close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. > Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion
are set in concrete and you are unwilling to accept any views but your
own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of time and energy for
anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest
that, before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

That ship sailed, hit an iceberg and sank long ago.

So is transubstantiation nonsense Ronnie?

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren
My sister is JW but I won't talk about it with her unless she brings it up
or joins hfx.general where all topics are open to discussion (or are they?).

Yes they are Jimmy but certain subjects cannot be *discussed* with people who demonstrate the
close
mindedness you do concerning religion.

Closed minded?

Yes!

OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.

You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

BTW is transubstantiation nonsense?

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on
religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told
you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion
with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk
losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and
therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that
which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to
make, I have nothing to prove to you and, in case you haven't
noticed, the issue is one generated by you and your compulsive
obsession with and pathological fear of anything to do with
religion. Your LWA buddies on here have been telling you for
weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to make, I have nothing to prove to you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated by you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion. Your LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically correct. They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes them feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.

Just because no one is willing to address the content of my posts by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong. Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.

Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that truth and rationality trump
political correctness.

Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and
evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views
on religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've
told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion
with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future
too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk
losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth
and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that
which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to
make, I have nothing to prove to you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated
by you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion.
Your LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically
correct. They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes
them feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my
posts by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong.
Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only
relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that
truth and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only
issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I am,
religious or otherwise. You simply make assumptions which fit
your agenda. Listen to your LWA buddies and stop with the
incessant anti religious post. They are making you look stupid.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to make, I have nothing to prove to you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated by you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion. Your LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically correct. They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes them feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my posts by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong. Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that truth and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I am, religious or otherwise. You simply
make assumptions which fit your agenda. Listen to your LWA buddies and stop with the incessant anti
religious post. They are making you look stupid.

You are making you look stupid. Look how scared you are to answer a simple question. And look at
yourself grovel pleading for me to leave you alone. You are not compelled to reply, but you do,
just to attack the messenger. If you were able to reply to the content of my posts, you certainly
would. You're getting as ridiculous as the Rodent with your incessant string of evasive non-answers.

So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

[me]

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and
evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views
on religion are set in concrete and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've
told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion
with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit
the constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the
future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk
losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth
and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that
which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case
to make, I have nothing to prove to you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated
by you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion.
Your LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses
to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically
correct. They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes
them feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my
posts by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or
wrong. Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever
do I need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only
relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that
truth and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that
only issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I
am, religious or otherwise. You simply
make assumptions which fit your agenda. Listen to your LWA
buddies and stop with the incessant anti
religious post. They are making you look stupid.

You are making you look stupid. Look how scared you are to
answer a simple question.

Scared??? LOL! I'm not answering your question because it would
be a waste of time as you have made it abundantly clear you would
not accept the answer, whatever it was. You have made it clear
that your opinion is the only one that counts.

Post by James Warren
And look at
yourself grovel pleading for me to leave you alone.

Grovel???? Get over yourself Jimmy.

Post by James Warren
You are not compelled to reply, but you do,
just to attack the messenger.

No Jimmy, not to attack the messenger rather to do what your LWA
buddies have already done.

Post by James Warren
If you were able to reply to the content of my posts, you
certainly
would.

No, see above.

Post by James Warren
You're getting as ridiculous as the Rodent with your incessant
string of evasive non-answers.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

You are getting more ridiculous, and more ignorant, than the
rodent with your incessant posing of the same question over and
over again. Give it up and save what little credibility you have
left.

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on religion are set in concrete
and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to make, I have nothing to prove to
you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated by you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion. Your LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically correct. They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes them feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my posts by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong. Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that truth and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I am, religious or otherwise. You simply
make assumptions which fit your agenda. Listen to your LWA buddies and stop with the incessant anti
religious post. They are making you look stupid.

You are making you look stupid. Look how scared you are to answer a simple question.

Scared??? LOL! I'm not answering your question because it would be a waste of time as you have
made it abundantly clear you would not accept the answer, whatever it was. You have made it clear
that your opinion is the only one that counts.

What you think of as my opinion as the only one that matters is simply the
obvious truth about what transubstantiation is. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.
There is no debate about facts. It is not a matter of one opinion vs another opinion.
It is simply a matter of facing a fact.

Post by James Warren
And look at
yourself grovel pleading for me to leave you alone.

Grovel???? Get over yourself Jimmy.

Then stop pleading and whining and face the issue like a man. LOL

Post by James Warren
You are not compelled to reply, but you do,
just to attack the messenger.

No Jimmy, not to attack the messenger rather to do what your LWA buddies have already done.

They do the same as you but nicer and maybe for other reasons.

Post by James Warren
If you were able to reply to the content of my posts, you certainly
would.

No, see above.

Then stop replying!

Post by James Warren
You're getting as ridiculous as the Rodent with your incessant string of evasive non-answers.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

You are getting more ridiculous, and more ignorant, than the rodent with your incessant posing of
the same question over and over again. Give it up and save what little credibility you have left.

Asking a question with an obvious answer which you refuse to answer says nothing about my
credibility but says a lot about your intellectual integrity.

So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

[HRM Resident]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on
religion are set in concrete
and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told
you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with
you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to
make, I have nothing to prove to
you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated by
you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion. Your
LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically correct.
They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes them
feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my posts
by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong.
Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I
need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only
relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that truth
and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only
issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I am,
religious or otherwise. You simply
make assumptions which fit your agenda. Listen to your LWA buddies
and stop with the incessant anti
religious post. They are making you look stupid.

You are making you look stupid. Look how scared you are to answer a simple question.

Scared??? LOL! I'm not answering your question because it would be a
waste of time as you have
made it abundantly clear you would not accept the answer, whatever it
was. You have made it clear
that your opinion is the only one that counts.

What you think of as my opinion as the only one that matters is simply the
obvious truth about what transubstantiation is. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.
There is no debate about facts. It is not a matter of one opinion vs another opinion.
It is simply a matter of facing a fact.

Post by James Warren
And look at
yourself grovel pleading for me to leave you alone.

Grovel???? Get over yourself Jimmy.

Then stop pleading and whining and face the issue like a man. LOL

Post by James Warren
You are not compelled to reply, but you do,
just to attack the messenger.

No Jimmy, not to attack the messenger rather to do what your LWA
buddies have already done.

They do the same as you but nicer and maybe for other reasons.

Post by James Warren
If you were able to reply to the content of my posts, you certainly
would.

No, see above.

Then stop replying!

Post by James Warren
You're getting as ridiculous as the Rodent with your incessant string
of evasive non-answers.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

You are getting more ridiculous, and more ignorant, than the rodent
with your incessant posing of
the same question over and over again. Give it up and save what
little credibility you have left.

Asking a question with an obvious answer which you refuse to answer says nothing about my
credibility but says a lot about your intellectual integrity.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result
of a magazine consistently making fun of ALL religions. This is why you
should choose your words carefully. You absolutely have the right to
free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an
insulting manner, there are consequences.

Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no,
I'm not defending the terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm
simply showing you what happens when a person or organization becomes
obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult
is remarkably strong in you! :-)

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren

Post by me

Post by James Warren
OK, so what about religion should I be open to?
I already told you I am always open to argument and evidence. Got any?

No way Jimmy! You have made it very clear that your views on
religion are set in concrete
and you
are unwilling to accept any views but your own. As I've told
you before, it would be a waste of
time and energy for anybody to attempt to discuss religion with
you. I strongly suggest that,
before you lose any credibility you have left, you quit the
constant harping about religion.

Wow! Now you are reduced to begging. And you know the future too!
The truth is you have no case; you know it and won't risk losing face.
Another interpretation is that you know you have the truth and therefore
not accepting it is my fault. You define the truth as that which you hold
to be the truth; evidence, or no evidence, be damned.
You can't make your case by refusing to make your case! :)

You're not losing it Jimmy, you've lost it. I have no case to
make, I have nothing to prove to
you
and, in case you haven't noticed, the issue is one generated by
you and your compulsive obsession
with and pathological fear of anything to do with religion. Your
LWA buddies on here have been
telling you for weeks now to give it up, listen to them.

Sure you have a case. You are a religious person who refuses to say
why you believe
patently silly things. My buddies are being politically correct.
They do not disagree
about the truth of my posts about religion. Because it makes them
feel uneasy or bored,
so they say, they would prefer that I stop.
Just because no one is willing to address the content of my posts
by either rebutting
or refuting them, that does make the content invalid or wrong.
Quite the opposite, it
adds strength to them.
Also my compulsive obsession or "fear of religion" (whatever do I
need to be afraid of?)
is irrelevant to the truth of my posts; and that is the only
relevant consideration, even
if you, yourself, have no respect for the truth. I think that truth
and rationality trump
political correctness.
Yes, the issue is one generated by me. Did you think that only
issues generated by YOU
were worth of this group?

Yeah, you've lost it, you have no idea what kind of person I am,
religious or otherwise. You simply
make assumptions which fit your agenda. Listen to your LWA buddies
and stop with the incessant anti
religious post. They are making you look stupid.

You are making you look stupid. Look how scared you are to answer a simple question.

Scared??? LOL! I'm not answering your question because it would be a
waste of time as you have
made it abundantly clear you would not accept the answer, whatever it
was. You have made it clear
that your opinion is the only one that counts.

What you think of as my opinion as the only one that matters is simply the
obvious truth about what transubstantiation is. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.
There is no debate about facts. It is not a matter of one opinion vs another opinion.
It is simply a matter of facing a fact.

Post by James Warren
And look at
yourself grovel pleading for me to leave you alone.

Grovel???? Get over yourself Jimmy.

Then stop pleading and whining and face the issue like a man. LOL

Post by James Warren
You are not compelled to reply, but you do,
just to attack the messenger.

No Jimmy, not to attack the messenger rather to do what your LWA
buddies have already done.

They do the same as you but nicer and maybe for other reasons.

Post by James Warren
If you were able to reply to the content of my posts, you certainly
would.

No, see above.

Then stop replying!

Post by James Warren
You're getting as ridiculous as the Rodent with your incessant string
of evasive non-answers.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

You are getting more ridiculous, and more ignorant, than the rodent
with your incessant posing of
the same question over and over again. Give it up and save what
little credibility you have left.

Asking a question with an obvious answer which you refuse to answer says nothing about my
credibility but says a lot about your intellectual integrity.
So, is transubstantiation nonsense?

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result of a magazine consistently
making fun of ALL religions. This is why you should choose your words carefully. You absolutely
have the right to free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an insulting
manner, there are consequences.
Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no, I'm not defending the
terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm simply showing you what happens when a person or
organization becomes obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult is
remarkably strong in you! :-)

I see. You think we should give in to intimidation. Irrational beliefs will never go away if we all
meekly give in to their threats. In France, where Islam is strong, physical threats occur. Where
Islam is weak and Christianity is strong the demand is for "respect". I don't think Carter and
Ronnie are going to team up to firebomb my house. (Did I just give them an idea? :) ) From 1960
to recently I was careful around believers. I did not even push a Darwinfish on my car for fear
that Christians would damage it. I have one now at the urging of my wife.

I don't think we have much to fear in Canada. The hot Right wing bible thumpers to our south may
give one some concern though.

As for the "drive" to mock being strong, (forget the insult part that is a reaction of the reader)
it is true. I have always been known for my sense of humor, especially irony and satire, but not
everyone has been appreciative, especially the uptight. :)

[l***@fl.it]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:09:44 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result of a magazine consistently
making fun of ALL religions. This is why you should choose your words carefully. You absolutely
have the right to free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an insulting
manner, there are consequences.
Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no, I'm not defending the
terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm simply showing you what happens when a person or
organization becomes obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult is
remarkably strong in you! :-)

I see. You think we should give in to intimidation. Irrational beliefs will never go away if we all
meekly give in to their threats. In France, where Islam is strong, physical threats occur. Where
Islam is weak and Christianity is strong the demand is for "respect". I don't think Carter and
Ronnie are going to team up to firebomb my house. (Did I just give them an idea? :) ) From 1960
to recently I was careful around believers. I did not even push a Darwinfish on my car for fear
that Christians would damage it. I have one now at the urging of my wife.
I don't think we have much to fear in Canada. The hot Right wing bible thumpers to our south may
give one some concern though.
As for the "drive" to mock being strong, (forget the insult part that is a reaction of the reader)
it is true. I have always been known for my sense of humor, especially irony and satire, but not
everyone has been appreciative, especially the uptight. :)

I agree with HRM - mostly because it is BORING, VERY BORING. Sometimes
that concentration is enough to make religion attractive:) Surely you
could lay off it simply because we ask you to ? I mean, two atheists
ask you to quit and that's not enough ???

[HRM Resident]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:09:44 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result of a magazine consistently
making fun of ALL religions. This is why you should choose your words carefully. You absolutely
have the right to free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an insulting
manner, there are consequences.
Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no, I'm not defending the
terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm simply showing you what happens when a person or
organization becomes obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult is
remarkably strong in you! :-)

I see. You think we should give in to intimidation. Irrational beliefs will never go away if we all
meekly give in to their threats. In France, where Islam is strong, physical threats occur. Where
Islam is weak and Christianity is strong the demand is for "respect". I don't think Carter and
Ronnie are going to team up to firebomb my house. (Did I just give them an idea? :) ) From 1960
to recently I was careful around believers. I did not even push a Darwinfish on my car for fear
that Christians would damage it. I have one now at the urging of my wife.
I don't think we have much to fear in Canada. The hot Right wing bible thumpers to our south may
give one some concern though.
As for the "drive" to mock being strong, (forget the insult part that is a reaction of the reader)
it is true. I have always been known for my sense of humor, especially irony and satire, but not
everyone has been appreciative, especially the uptight. :)

I agree with HRM - mostly because it is BORING, VERY BORING. Sometimes
that concentration is enough to make religion attractive:) Surely you
could lay off it simply because we ask you to ? I mean, two atheists
ask you to quit and that's not enough ???

Actually, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. Why? Because no one
has ever provided me with evidence either way. People like James mock
me because I won't take a stand. Tough. I'm not defending or mocking
anything based on my gut feeling or "common sense." "Common sense" is
another expression for "I'm right and you are wrong."

At the same time, religious believers will tell me I am damned to
hell for all eternity . . . by a God who loves me!

No one knows, and anyone who claims they do is just guessing. I'm
not being politically correct, as James suggested a day or so ago. I
was a rosary rattler with the best when I was a kid. I simply couldn't
believe it was the way they told me, especially when I hit my teens.
Doesn't mean there isn't a God . . . just means no one could convince me
there was or was not. James is, in a strange way, making me question if
atheists really know what they are talking about as well. Either way, I
agree. It is BORING.

BTW, James, "I see. You think we should give in to intimidation" is
something Carter would say. It's a false dilemma, the joy of RWAs. Let
me phrase it another way. While you might have supreme authority over
your property, and have the right do do what you want on it, if a bear
is asleep in the corner of your yard, do you go poke him with a stick?
Surely you are not intimidated by a sleepy bear! While you are poking
him, show him a funny bear cartoon! :-)

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:09:44 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result of a magazine
consistently
making fun of ALL religions. This is why you should choose your words carefully. You absolutely
have the right to free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an insulting
manner, there are consequences.
Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no, I'm not defending the
terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm simply showing you what happens when a person or
organization becomes obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult is
remarkably strong in you! :-)

I see. You think we should give in to intimidation. Irrational beliefs will never go away if we all
meekly give in to their threats. In France, where Islam is strong, physical threats occur. Where
Islam is weak and Christianity is strong the demand is for "respect". I don't think Carter and
Ronnie are going to team up to firebomb my house. (Did I just give them an idea? :) ) From 1960
to recently I was careful around believers. I did not even push a Darwinfish on my car for fear
that Christians would damage it. I have one now at the urging of my wife.
I don't think we have much to fear in Canada. The hot Right wing bible thumpers to our south may
give one some concern though.
As for the "drive" to mock being strong, (forget the insult part that is a reaction of the reader)
it is true. I have always been known for my sense of humor, especially irony and satire, but not
everyone has been appreciative, especially the uptight. :)

I agree with HRM - mostly because it is BORING, VERY BORING. Sometimes
that concentration is enough to make religion attractive:) Surely you
could lay off it simply because we ask you to ? I mean, two atheists
ask you to quit and that's not enough ???

Actually, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. Why? Because no one has ever provided me with
evidence either way. People like James mock me because I won't take a stand. Tough. I'm not
defending or mocking anything based on my gut feeling or "common sense." "Common sense" is another
expression for "I'm right and you are wrong."

It is not common sense; it is rational. No evidence, therefore no belief. Proof of non-existence is
neither possible nor necessary for disbelief. A lack of evidence will suffice.

I fervently believe in a teacup in orbit around Pluto. Now you tell me why that belief
is irrational.

At the same time, religious believers will tell me I am damned to hell for all eternity . . .
by a God who loves me!
No one knows, and anyone who claims they do is just guessing. I'm not being politically
correct, as James suggested a day or so ago. I was a rosary rattler with the best when I was a
kid. I simply couldn't believe it was the way they told me, especially when I hit my teens. Doesn't
mean there isn't a God . . . just means no one could convince me there was or was not. James is, in
a strange way, making me question if atheists really know what they are talking about as well.
Either way, I agree. It is BORING.

I see, you were well indoctrinated. I understand that it is hard for you to completely let go.
Sit on the fence, just in case.

BTW, James, "I see. You think we should give in to intimidation" is something Carter would
say. It's a false dilemma, the joy of RWAs. Let me phrase it another way. While you might have
supreme authority over your property, and have the right do do what you want on it, if a bear is
asleep in the corner of your yard, do you go poke him with a stick? Surely you are not intimidated
by a sleepy bear! While you are poking him, show him a funny bear cartoon! :-)

Wrong analogy! A few centuries ago when Christianity dominated the western world, it would have
been folly to speak out against the church because you would have been burned at the stake or
deprived of a livelihood at best. Islam is not in that position now in the western world. It has
more to lose by resistance from us than we do. Surrendering to intimidation at this time is exactly
the wrong thing to do.

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 13:09:44 -0400, James Warren

Post by James Warren

Ask the guys who did the shooting in Paris. It was a direct result of a magazine consistently
making fun of ALL religions. This is why you should choose your words carefully. You absolutely
have the right to free speech, but often if this right is exercised excessively and in an insulting
manner, there are consequences.
Lay off religions . . . it serves no purpose to mock them. And no, I'm not defending the
terrorists in Paris, nor do I fear them. I'm simply showing you what happens when a person or
organization becomes obsessed with doing what you are doing! The "drive" to mock and insult is
remarkably strong in you! :-)

I see. You think we should give in to intimidation. Irrational beliefs will never go away if we all
meekly give in to their threats. In France, where Islam is strong, physical threats occur. Where
Islam is weak and Christianity is strong the demand is for "respect". I don't think Carter and
Ronnie are going to team up to firebomb my house. (Did I just give them an idea? :) ) From 1960
to recently I was careful around believers. I did not even push a Darwinfish on my car for fear
that Christians would damage it. I have one now at the urging of my wife.
I don't think we have much to fear in Canada. The hot Right wing bible thumpers to our south may
give one some concern though.
As for the "drive" to mock being strong, (forget the insult part that is a reaction of the reader)
it is true. I have always been known for my sense of humor, especially irony and satire, but not
everyone has been appreciative, especially the uptight. :)

I agree with HRM - mostly because it is BORING, VERY BORING. Sometimes
that concentration is enough to make religion attractive:) Surely you
could lay off it simply because we ask you to ? I mean, two atheists
ask you to quit and that's not enough ???

Did you find that NEXT button yet?

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to
prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods
that have something to prove.

Post by Ronnie Rodent
Hence he has no credibility.
Thats why he can't get anyone sucked into his religious ranting
foolishness.
LOL

It is interesting that James wants to know if the RCs actually believe
in transubstantiation. As I understand it, that means that big
church up near me contains people at mass on Sundays believing they
are actually eating the body, and drinking the blood of a man who
lived over two thousand years ago. Sounds very cannabalistic, if
nothing else.

Of course it's cannibalistic. For Protestants it's only symbolic, for RCs
it's literally true through the magic transubstantiation. Many religions,
including Christianity, derive from human sacrifice beliefs. The remnants
of this are preserved today in transubstantiation.
What is curious is that none of the believers here will say whether or not
transubstantiation is nonsense. Perhaps they don't want to be reminded that
being religious means having to believe is some pretty silly things. They
attack the messenger rather than addressing the message. I think it means
they can't handle the truth. It's certainly the case with the Rodent. LOL

I grew up a Catholic (as did you, James, if I recall correctly.) We both left the church
(again, if I recall your posts of some years ago correctly.) I have no opinion on
transubstantiation.** I'd like to think that with the maturity and wisdom that comes with age, we
realise that we are not so conceited as to think we understand everything.

No, I was not raised Catholic; it was Church of England.
No opinion on transubstantiation?? It is obvious that a few pious words cannot
transubstantiate anything. It is not necessary to think that one understands
everything to understand this. Magic does not exist.

I'm not a Mr Spock, and Vulcans are unlikely to exist. Hence my beliefs are not 100% based on
logic and evidence. I listen to it all, and like all agnostics, I simple say to myself, "Who knows?"

Indeed. But why is it rational the believe without evidence? It is rational to disbelieve but be
willing to change one's mind if convincing evidence is ever discovered.

I guess it's AA season, so these yearly salvoes against religion were to be expected. Odd.
Religious believers are always angry at atheists and atheists are always angry at religious
believers. Why do we need the anger to try to prove the unprovable? Why mock others for their
beliefs? What is to be gained except enemies?

I don't know why you think I am angry, and certainly not at believers. I merely point out the
folly of religious beliefs. It may indeed make some people angry because their inability to
defend their beliefs is exposed. Why not mock silly beliefs. Why pretend that believing silly
things is fine. It isn't.

** Unless you call this an opinion: I believe we do not even know 0.0001% of the meaning of
life, and we understand even less of the universe. Hence any opinion on *anything* is simply based
on what our extremely limited senses can observe and describe. I don't have enough real evidence to
opine on transubstantiation one way or the other. All I can say is that atheists make a good case
against it, while knowing no more than anyone else. But they sure get angry in the winter! :-)

No meaning of life has been found in our study of the universe, so it is rational to believe that
there is none. However limited, the best basis for belief in anything is evidence. We can do no
better. What you are calling anger I call humor. It is fun to point out the silliness of things
people are willing to believe. THEY CAUSE head shakings and facepalms and smirks. At the scientific
level it is fascinating that people are capable of such things and in fact seem to be inexorably
drawn to such beliefs. It's fucking amazing really - and endlessly fascinating.

[Ronnie Rodent]

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

In the context of this conversation, your evidence that supports....

"I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I
know with 100% certainty that there are no gods."

You made a 100% claim of something. That would be a fact and not a
belief. That means no chance of error.

Jimmy gave you a pass on evidence on the 100% claim you made because
it suits his view and someone finally support his ranting.

Therefore, Jimmy has no credibility. :-)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by Ronnie Rodent

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

In the context of this conversation, your evidence that supports....
"I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I
know with 100% certainty that there are no gods."
You made a 100% claim of something. That would be a fact and not a
belief. That means no chance of error.
Jimmy gave you a pass on evidence on the 100% claim you made because
it suits his view and someone finally support his ranting.
Therefore, Jimmy has no credibility. :-)

LOL. I said I think JVG has 100% confidence in his conclusion. But even he, I think, will
admit that he probably rounded up from 99.999999999% sure based on the total lack of
evidence for any gods. :)

BTW is transubstantiation nonsense Ronnie?

[jvangurp]

Post by James Warren

Post by Ronnie Rodent

Post by jvangurp

Post by Ronnie Rodent
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 14:04:21 -0400, HRM Resident

Post by HRM Resident

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to
provide evidence to back it up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a
scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you hold. Is that
the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)
Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered?
"Everyone who makes a claim is bound to back it up with evidence, unless
they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty stuff, James! I
suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because
the Nobel Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I
thought the answer to the universe was the 2nd law and entropy. It's
not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the
scientist who discovered this unimaginable truth, so the prize does
indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Jimmy only "demands" evidence from those that disagree with his view.

Evidence of what? I didn't claim something exists. There's nothing to prove or demonstrate. It's people making the ludicrous claims of gods that have something to prove.

In the context of this conversation, your evidence that supports....
"I'm jumping into this discussion out of turn, but you're wrong. I
know with 100% certainty that there are no gods."
You made a 100% claim of something. That would be a fact and not a
belief. That means no chance of error.
Jimmy gave you a pass on evidence on the 100% claim you made because
it suits his view and someone finally support his ranting.
Therefore, Jimmy has no credibility. :-)

LOL. I said I think JVG has 100% confidence in his conclusion. But even he, I think, will
admit that he probably rounded up from 99.999999999% sure based on the total lack of
evidence for any gods. :)

No there's no rounding up! lol I know it for a 100% certainty.
JvG

[James Warren]

Post by James Warren
snip<

Post by l***@fl.it
Be interesting to see if Arguebot challenges anything you say or calls
for stats :)

I challenge nothing of jvg says. It is quite clearly rational.

You said numerous times that anyone making a claim has the duty to provide evidence to back it
up. Apparently JVG (a gentleman and a scholar, as are you) has the same point of view that you
hold. Is that the reason he's excused from the "no claims without evidence" rule? :-)

Aha, you misquote the rational rule. Everyone who makes an *existence* claim has the burden of
proof. JVG made the claim that he is 100% sure that there are no gods. This, of course, like all
negative existence claims cannot be proved. I interpreted JVG's remark to mean that he has
concluded, based on the profound lack of evidence for any god, that none exist. I am sure that
JVG, like me, would instantly change hia mind if convincing evidence for a god were to be
discovered. Until then, no evidence; no belief.

Like I said before, if you claim the you can believe in the existence anything at all if there is
not 100% proof of the non-existence of that thing, then you are free to believe in any arbitrary
thing at all. This is not rational. Positive existence beliefs require evidence of existence.
Otherwise, belief in unicorns and teacups orbiting Pluto would be reasonable. There would be no
way to discern what is believable from what is not believable.

Is that the 3rd or 4th law of thermodynamics you've discovered? "Everyone who makes a claim is
bound to back it up with evidence, unless they are in agreement with an Arguebot." Heavy duty
stuff, James! I suggest you look for seat sales to Stockholm for next December, because the Nobel
Prize Committee are going to be looking for you! :-) I thought the answer to the universe was the
2nd law and entropy. It's not! It's JVG's view on religion. Who would have thought? Too bad you
and he can't share the Nobel Prize, but he's the "law" and you are the scientist who discovered this
unimaginable truth, so the prize does indeed belong to you! :-)
Sorry, John, but he really deserves it! :-)

Sorry HRM, your rant is unfounded. :)

[Ronnie Rodent]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it means to debate.

And he doesn't think he is attitude impaired!

The tattoo on his forehead would be a waste of ink......:-)

LOL

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.

A fact is not an opinion. Most of my religious posts are facts.

Post by ***@home.com
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.

It is contradictory. Some are capable of carrying it off.
Some facts like transubstantiation can hardly be debated.
It is just nonsense. My posts point out such nonsense.

Post by ***@home.com
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it means to debate.

They are religion jokes and religion mocking. Religions contains so much nonsense
that this is not hard to do. Call it bashing if you wish. I think it offends some
because they know it is nonsense and don't wish to admit it. They don't want to be
reminded that they believe some foolish things. So instead of attacking the *content*
of the post, the attack the *poster*. If you can't face facts look for the NEXT button
on your newsreader.

[me]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate" someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

[James Warren]

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to the other person's opinion
and then logically and rationally contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth" and they're only purpose is
to, without any rationality or reason, say "I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you
don't KNOW you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a scientist are NOT
contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He
firmly believed his faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his particular
faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a religion bashing thread
started by you. Most of them are never andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in
debunking it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect believers.....agree to
disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more with you because I have no confidence whatsoever
that you know what it means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

So you won't say if transubstantiation is nonsense or not.
What are you afraid of?

[A N Other]

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[HRM Resident]

Post by A N Other

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

He's going to be doing a lot of ID changing, seeing as he's one
click away from PLONK and has to start over every time he does it! :-)

[[e-mail]]

Post by HRM Resident

Post by A N Other

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

He's going to be doing a lot of ID changing, seeing as he's one
click away from PLONK and has to start over every time he does it! :-)
--
HRM Resident

I neither know who Me or A N Other are. Could be someone I had filtered when I used Agent but this darn accessing NG's via Google doesn't have filtering as far as I know.

[A N Other]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by HRM Resident

Post by A N Other

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

He's going to be doing a lot of ID changing, seeing as he's one
click away from PLONK and has to start over every time he does it! :-)
--
HRM Resident

I neither know who Me or A N Other are. Could be someone I had filtered when I used Agent but this darn accessing NG's via Google doesn't have filtering as far as I know.

me is everyone's favouriturd ex-mp Carter, I'm someone else.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[l***@fl.it]

Post by A N Other

Post by ***@home.com

Post by HRM Resident

Post by A N Other

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

He's going to be doing a lot of ID changing, seeing as he's one
click away from PLONK and has to start over every time he does it! :-)
--
HRM Resident

I neither know who Me or A N Other are. Could be someone I had filtered when I used Agent but this darn accessing NG's via Google doesn't have filtering as far as I know.

me is everyone's favouriturd ex-mp Carter, I'm someone else.

I'll vouch for A N Other, lovely person :)

Post by A N Other
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[James Warren]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by A N Other

Post by ***@home.com

Post by HRM Resident

Post by A N Other

Post by me

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren
Perhaps you might care to explain how my attitude affects the truth value
of transubstantiation?
As for my attitude, perhaps is is you who is humor impaired. Most of the
posts I pass on from elsewhere are quite funny.
--
-jw

A debate involves presenting your opinion on the issue, listening to
the other person's opinion and then logically and rationally
contracting their opinion with reasons. No one wants to "debate"
someone who starts of THINKING that they're the "keeper of the truth"
and they're only purpose is to, without any rationality or reason, say
"I'm right. You're wrong. End of story". Fact is, you don't KNOW
you;re right any more than a theist does.
If only you could realize that believing in a higher power and being a
scientist are NOT contradictory. Used to have a friend who taught
physics at SMU and was an elder in his church. He firmly believed his
faith and his science could coexist. I was not a believer in his
particular faith but I sure admired how he reconciled the two.
Look at the message list for this NG, James. Almost every thread is a
religion bashing thread started by you. Most of them are never
andwered. You have to ask yourself why you're so tied up in debunking
it? You don't believe in it. I respect that. You need to respect
believers.....agree to disagree. Not going to "debate" this any more
with you because I have no confidence whatsoever that you know what it
means to debate.

Clap, clap,clap, clap.

I see you still have bad manners and change your ID to avoid filters

He's going to be doing a lot of ID changing, seeing as he's one
click away from PLONK and has to start over every time he does it! :-)
--
HRM Resident

I neither know who Me or A N Other are. Could be someone I had filtered when I used Agent but this darn accessing NG's via Google doesn't have filtering as far as I know.

me is everyone's favouriturd ex-mp Carter, I'm someone else.

I'll vouch for A N Other, lovely person :)

Judging from his former alias and what I know about what he does, I'll have to agree. :)

[[e-mail]]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Back atcha, Ronnie. Like you, I would love to see less rabid religion bashing in 2015 but that's not likely to happen so I will just wish EVERYONE peace and happiness in the new year.

[James Warren]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Back atcha, Ronnie. Like you, I would love to see less rabid religion bashing in 2015 but that's not likely to happen so I will just wish EVERYONE peace and happiness in the new year.

My religion "bashing" presents valid points. You may dispute or refute them
at your pleasure. Don't call it bashing if it is correct.

[[e-mail]]

Post by James Warren

Post by ***@home.com

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Back atcha, Ronnie. Like you, I would love to see less rabid religion bashing in 2015 but that's not likely to happen so I will just wish EVERYONE peace and happiness in the new year.

My religion "bashing" presents valid points. You may dispute or refute them
at your pleasure. Don't call it bashing if it is correct.
--
-jw

I don't refer to someone expressing their OPINIONS as bashing unless those opinions are rooted in an unreasoned hate for or opinion of the topic he/ she is discussing. I used to freely debate topics on this NG with several people whom I didn't always agree with but whose points were valid and rational. There were times when we had to agree to disagree but we left the thread with respect for each other. I would include Sheena amongst those folks. I don't think either of us will ever convince the other and neither of us want to try. It's called respect.

[James Warren]

Post by ***@home.com

Post by James Warren

Post by ***@home.com

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Back atcha, Ronnie. Like you, I would love to see less rabid religion bashing in 2015 but that's not likely to happen so I will just wish EVERYONE peace and happiness in the new year.

My religion "bashing" presents valid points. You may dispute or refute them
at your pleasure. Don't call it bashing if it is correct.
--
-jw

I don't refer to someone expressing their OPINIONS as bashing unless those opinions are rooted in an unreasoned hate for or opinion of the topic he/ she is discussing. I used to freely debate topics on this NG with several people whom I didn't always agree with but whose points were valid and rational. There were times when we had to agree to disagree but we left the thread with respect for each other. I would include Sheena amongst those folks. I don't think either of us will ever convince the other and neither of us want to try. It's called respect.

Respect is fine. My posts are about religion. They expose their contradictions
and their silly beliefs. If you see this as hate then I suggest that you interpret
as hate facts and arguments that you cannot refute. You cannot distinguish criticism of
religions from criticism of its believers.

[Jack]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Jimmy was molested by the Christian brothers, and he has a VERY close relative who is a fudge=packer, ergo his hate on for religions. Knowing that, it makes sense. And Jimmy, did you ever consider "transubstantiation" is metaphoric??

[James Warren]

Post by Jack

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Jimmy was molested by the Christian brothers, and he has a VERY close relative who is a fudge=packer, ergo his hate on for religions. Knowing that, it makes sense. And Jimmy, did you ever consider "transubstantiation" is metaphoric??

Nope. It is literally true according to RC doctrine.

Your cute history is not quite the truth. LOL

[Jack]

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Jimmy's ego won't allow him to quit...

[James Warren]

Post by Jack

Post by Ronnie Rodent
To all my friends, acquaintances and even "angry over Christmas"
Jimmy!
I wish all the best in the new year and for Jimmy may your BP calm
down in January! LOL
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Jimmy's ego won't allow him to quit...