Is atheism scientifically disprovable? Yes

Discussion:

Is atheism scientifically disprovable? Yes

(too old to reply)

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-01 17:57:50 UTC

The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-01 18:43:15 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

yup

%

2017-04-01 18:53:22 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation
depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all
that
need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it
impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

yup

One of the main points of contention is this – what can we infer from
the relationship between damage to the brain and resulting
neurological signs and symptoms. My position is that, if the mind is
entirely caused by the functioning of the brain, then damage to the
brain will damage the mind. I maintain that this is true, as far as we
can tell from our current technology and understanding of
neuroscience.

Egnor maintains that this is not true – that the relationship is “not
the least bit predictable.” Further, that this lack of total
correlation is evidence for dualism, that the mind is produced, at
least in part, by something immaterial

Davej

2017-04-01 19:02:56 UTC

[...scientifically illiterate silliness...]

Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be examined.

John Locke

2017-04-01 19:39:43 UTC

Post by Davej

[...scientifically illiterate silliness...]

Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be examined.

....holy shit, he just appeared over San Pedro, he's been examned,
FLASH, it's an alien with anti-grav sandals !

Don Martin

2017-04-02 12:51:22 UTC

On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:39:43 -0700, John Locke

Post by John Locke

Post by Davej

[...scientifically illiterate silliness...]

Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be examined.

....holy shit, he just appeared over San Pedro, he's been examned,
FLASH, it's an alien with anti-grav sandals !

Who needs miracles when one has advanced technology?

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

JTEM

2017-04-04 21:16:28 UTC

Post by Davej
Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be examined.

Your thinking is confused, again. Your customary
emotionalism, no doubt...

Evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis, and
atheism can't be right if evolution is wrong.

Period.

No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's simply no
longer necessary. We only need evolution if
life is naturally occurring, creationism is
wrong, and we require a mechanism for getting
life from the small & simple to the large &
complex. But if life can just magic into
existence, why not magic in as a giraffe?

...we no longer need evolution.

So abiogensis is the hinge on which all of
atheism swings. Remove it and there's no more
atheism.

It doesn't work the other way around, I
apparently need to tell you. Theism can
exist with evolution. Theism can exist with
abiogenesis. It's only atheism that is
dependent here.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/private/159201509253/tumblr_ohov2g1hZm1qccpvo

Cloud Hobbit

2017-04-05 00:36:34 UTC

Post by Davej
Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be examined.

Your thinking is confused, again. Your customary
emotionalism, no doubt...
Evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis, and
atheism can't be right if evolution is wrong.
Period.
No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's simply no
longer necessary. We only need evolution if
life is naturally occurring, creationism is
wrong, and we require a mechanism for getting
life from the small & simple to the large &
complex. But if life can just magic into
existence, why not magic in as a giraffe?
...we no longer need evolution.
So abiogensis is the hinge on which all of
atheism swings. Remove it and there's no more
atheism.
It doesn't work the other way around, I
apparently need to tell you. Theism can
exist with evolution. Theism can exist with
abiogenesis. It's only atheism that is
dependent here.

I was an atheist way before I ever heard of abiogenesis.
If there was non-life and something, anything caused there to be life, there was abiogenesis.

Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.
Atheism cares nothing for it one way or another. It is possible to not believe in god(s) and still not know how life began on earth. It is possible to not believe in god(s) and not care how life began on earth.
Abiogenesis does not seem to be a problem for atheists as much as it is a problem for you guys. If there was an earth that had no life and then after a time it DID HAVE LIFE there was some kind of abiogenesis.
Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

JTEM

2017-04-05 03:26:33 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
I was an atheist way before I ever heard of abiogenesis.

Well you're a fuck head. And you're also a theist, so
if you had a point it was already lost...

You're angry at God and you insist upon a
literal, inerrant bible. You're a theist.

And a fuck head.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159199028293

aaa

2017-04-06 06:33:02 UTC

Post by Davej
Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be
examined.

Your thinking is confused, again. Your customary emotionalism, no
doubt...
Evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis, and atheism can't be right
if evolution is wrong.
Period.
No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's simply no longer necessary. We
only need evolution if life is naturally occurring, creationism is
wrong, and we require a mechanism for getting life from the small &
simple to the large & complex. But if life can just magic into
existence, why not magic in as a giraffe?
...we no longer need evolution.
So abiogensis is the hinge on which all of atheism swings. Remove
it and there's no more atheism.
It doesn't work the other way around, I apparently need to tell
you. Theism can exist with evolution. Theism can exist with
abiogenesis. It's only atheism that is dependent here.

I was an atheist way before I ever heard of abiogenesis. If there was
non-life and something, anything caused there to be life, there was
abiogenesis.
Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

No. Life from non-life = creation.

Atheism cares nothing for it one way or another. It is possible to
not believe in god(s) and still not know how life began on earth. It
is possible to not believe in god(s) and not care how life began on
earth. Abiogenesis does not seem to be a problem for atheists as much
as it is a problem for you guys. If there was an earth that had no
life and then after a time it DID HAVE LIFE there was some kind of
abiogenesis. Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all the
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

Mitchell Holman

2017-04-06 12:24:03 UTC

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all the
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

Where are you getting it from?

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-06 13:03:53 UTC

On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 07:24:03 -0500, Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

Why does the moron imagine non-Christians take Christian mythology
seriously?

Post by Mitchell Holman
None of the above is in the Bible OR science.
Where are you getting it from?

Out of his arse.

JTEM

2017-04-07 03:59:10 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by aaa
God's creation

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

It's a mystery to you, is it? You have no clue
what "God" he's referring to, even with the
capitalization?

Well, that pretty much discredits you now, doesn't
it?

You're a fucking idiot. You're a complete fucking
idiot.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159278596218

aaa

2017-04-06 22:40:18 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all the
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Where are you getting it from?

Why do you care?

:-)

Yap Honghor

2017-04-07 01:10:10 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all the
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

What?
Science knows that a human cannot part water, but the lying story in the scripture actually vouch for such ability!!!

Post by Mitchell Holman
Where are you getting it from?

Why do you care?

Obviously, you know that you are just a sucker, realizing your source is nothing but fraud.

aaa

2017-04-08 13:25:22 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens
all the time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary
path. Life on earth happens in stages with many explosions of
life. It happened just like the Big Bang. When the condition of
earth meets certain requirements. There was the explosion of
plant life. When there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere,
there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was
the explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along
with all the primates together in an explosion of life. There
was no evolution of primate from non-primate, and there was no
abiogenesis of life from non-life. God does not need time to
create life. God can create life in an instant as long as the
natural environment can meet the requirement. If the universe
can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

What? Science knows that a human cannot part water, but the lying
story in the scripture actually vouch for such ability!!!

So what? There is no lying in the scripture, but there is only utter
misunderstanding in you.

Post by Mitchell Holman
Where are you getting it from?

Why do you care?

Obviously, you know that you are just a sucker, realizing your source is nothing but fraud.

I have no doubt about my source. I only have doubt about my personal
ability to understand my source correctly. If there is any mistake in
what I say, it can only be mine alone.

Mitchell Holman

2017-04-08 15:26:46 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens
all the time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary
path. Life on earth happens in stages with many explosions of
life. It happened just like the Big Bang. When the condition of
earth meets certain requirements. There was the explosion of
plant life. When there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere,
there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was
the explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along
with all the primates together in an explosion of life. There
was no evolution of primate from non-primate, and there was no
abiogenesis of life from non-life. God does not need time to
create life. God can create life in an instant as long as the
natural environment can meet the requirement. If the universe
can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

What? Science knows that a human cannot part water, but the lying
story in the scripture actually vouch for such ability!!!

So what? There is no lying in the scripture, but there is only utter
misunderstanding in you.

Of course there is lying in the scripture.

But you wouldn't know that since you have
never actually read it.

Gen 1:11-12, Trees were created before man was created.
Gen 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

Gen 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

Gen 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
Gen 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Gen 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
Gen 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Ecc 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, The earth will someday perish.

1Sam 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.
2Sam 1:2-10 Saul was slain by an Amalekite.
2Sam 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1Chron 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.

Matt 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
Luke 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.

Matt 5:17-19, Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
Eph 2:13-15, Jesus did abolish the law.

Matt 7:21 We are justified by works, not by faith.
Romans3:20-26 We are justified by faith, not by works.

Matt 1:18-21 Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
Luke 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.

God CAN be seen:
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as
a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life
is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for
there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Mitchell Holman

2017-04-07 01:54:36 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all
the time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life
on earth happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened
just like the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain
requirements. There was the explosion of plant life. When there was
enough oxygen in the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal
life. When the earth temperature was high enough to produce plenty
food, there was the explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into
existence along with all the primates together in an explosion of
life. There was no evolution of primate from non-primate, and there
was no abiogenesis of life from non-life. God does not need time to
create life. God can create life in an instant as long as the
natural environment can meet the requirement. If the universe can
appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

Some Bible "science":

(a) Bats are birds (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

(b) Some birds are have four feet (Lev. 11:20-21);

(c) Some insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

(d) The earth was formed out of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

(e) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

(f) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

(g) Unicorns exist (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),

(h) Dragons exist (Malachi 1:3, Isaiah 13:22 Jeremiah 51:37)

(i) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

(j) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

(k) Faith healing works (Mark 16:17-18)

(l) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly
(Gen. 11:6-9;

(m) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

(o) Every species of plant and animal on Earth once
lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

aaa

2017-04-08 13:28:16 UTC

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by aaa
God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all
the time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life
on earth happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened
just like the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain
requirements. There was the explosion of plant life. When there was
enough oxygen in the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal
life. When the earth temperature was high enough to produce plenty
food, there was the explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into
existence along with all the primates together in an explosion of
life. There was no evolution of primate from non-primate, and there
was no abiogenesis of life from non-life. God does not need time to
create life. God can create life in an instant as long as the
natural environment can meet the requirement. If the universe can
appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear simultaneously?

None of the above is in the Bible OR science.

But there is no contradiction with the Bible and science.

False projection. The Bible is a philosophy book that has nothing to do
with science.

Post by Mitchell Holman
(a) Bats are birds (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
(b) Some birds are have four feet (Lev. 11:20-21);
(c) Some insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
(d) The earth was formed out of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
(e) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
(f) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
(g) Unicorns exist (Deut. 33:17, Psalms 22:21. 29:6, Job 39:9-10),
(h) Dragons exist (Malachi 1:3, Isaiah 13:22 Jeremiah 51:37)
(i) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
(j) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
(k) Faith healing works (Mark 16:17-18)
(l) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly
(Gen. 11:6-9;
(m) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).
(o) Every species of plant and animal on Earth once
lived within walking distance of Noah's house.

hypatiab7

2017-04-06 15:41:46 UTC

Post by Davej
Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be
examined.

Your thinking is confused, again. Your customary emotionalism, no
doubt...
Evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis, and atheism can't be right
if evolution is wrong.
Period.
No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's simply no longer necessary. We
only need evolution if life is naturally occurring, creationism is
wrong, and we require a mechanism for getting life from the small &
simple to the large & complex. But if life can just magic into
existence, why not magic in as a giraffe?
...we no longer need evolution.
So abiogensis is the hinge on which all of atheism swings. Remove
it and there's no more atheism.
It doesn't work the other way around, I apparently need to tell
you. Theism can exist with evolution. Theism can exist with
abiogenesis. It's only atheism that is dependent here.

I was an atheist way before I ever heard of abiogenesis. If there was
non-life and something, anything caused there to be life, there was
abiogenesis.
Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

No. Life from non-life = creation.

Atheism cares nothing for it one way or another. It is possible to
not believe in god(s) and still not know how life began on earth. It
is possible to not believe in god(s) and not care how life began on
earth. Abiogenesis does not seem to be a problem for atheists as much
as it is a problem for you guys. If there was an earth that had no
life and then after a time it DID HAVE LIFE there was some kind of
abiogenesis. Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

God's creation is not a one time event. God's creation happens all the
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-08 20:50:33 UTC

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by Davej
Sure, just have Jebus appear in the sky long enough to be
examined.

Your thinking is confused, again. Your customary emotionalism, no
doubt...
Evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis,

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

and atheism can't be right
if evolution is wrong.

Not just a fucking moron, but a transparently stupid liar.

Period.
No abiogenesis, no evolution.

He's insane.

Evolution is the label given to a set of facts that won't un-happen,
with its understanding derived from more than a century and a half of
objective research leading to whole new sciences and technologies that
we wouldn't otherwise have.

The seriously mentally ill individual knows this, and that it is
nothing to do with atheism.

The only reason he does this is out of bigotry and irrational hatred
for a minority whom he has been stalking and religiously harassing for
years.

If it were anything but his religion, and if he did it to other
minorities, eg Jews, black people,, gays, etc he would be inside for
hate crime.

It's simply no longer necessary. We
only need evolution if life is naturally occurring, creationism is

He's insane.

Evolution won't un-happen, no matter how much he wants it to, and how
much he lies about it.

wrong, and we require a mechanism for getting life from the small &
simple to the large & complex. But if life can just magic into
existence, why not magic in as a giraffe?
...we no longer need evolution.

The mind-bogglingly stupid, button-pushing liar knows perfectly well
that evolution isn't the result of need - but an observed phenomenon/

Like far too many religious loonies, he has no idea how science works,
or that its results are conclusion not beliefs plucked out of people's
arses like his unsolicited bullshit.

So abiogensis is the hinge on which all of atheism swings. Remove
it and there's no more atheism.

What a fucking moron.

The liar knows perfectly well that abiogenesis simply means the
appearance of life where there was previously none.

However it happened.

Even if his imaginary magical superbeing did it as per the Genesis
myths and legends, there was still a time when there was no life, and
subsequently there was.

Also. neither abiogenesis nor evolution have anything to do with
atheism and vice versa

It doesn't work the other way around, I apparently need to tell
you. Theism can exist with evolution. Theism can exist with
abiogenesis. It's only atheism that is dependent here.

Why isn't he in the psych ward?

I was an atheist way before I ever heard of abiogenesis. If there was
non-life and something, anything caused there to be life, there was
abiogenesis.

Me, too.

Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

No. Life from non-life = creation.

What a fucking moron.

Atheism cares nothing for it one way or another. It is possible to
not believe in god(s) and still not know how life began on earth. It
is possible to not believe in god(s) and not care how life began on
earth. Abiogenesis does not seem to be a problem for atheists as much
as it is a problem for you guys. If there was an earth that had no
life and then after a time it DID HAVE LIFE there was some kind of
abiogenesis. Life from nonlife = abiogenesis.

God's

WHAT FUCKING GOD, in the real world beyond this moron's religion?

Post by aaa
creation is not a one time event.

Because it's a zero time event until these morons provide the
necessary scientific evidence for it.

Because they're the ones bringing it up in the scientific arena.

Post by aaa
God's creation happens all the

WHAT FUCKING GOD AND WHAT FUCKING "GOD'S CREATION"?

Post by aaa
time. Life on earth does not follow an evolutionary path. Life on earth

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

Is the Niunian loonie the product of religious home-schooling?

Post by aaa
happens in stages with many explosions of life. It happened just like

What a fucking moron.

Post by aaa
the Big Bang. When the condition of earth meets certain requirements.
There was the explosion of plant life. When there was enough oxygen in
the atmosphere, there was the explosion of animal life. When the earth
temperature was high enough to produce plenty food, there was the
explosion of dinosaurs. Humans came into existence along with all the
primates together in an explosion of life. There was no evolution of
primate from non-primate, and there was no abiogenesis of life from
non-life. God does not need time to create life. God can create life in

WHAT FUCKING GOD?

Post by aaa
an instant as long as the natural environment can meet the requirement.
If the universe can appear in an instant, why can't life on earth appear
simultaneously?

The universe as we know it today, did not "appear in an instant",
imbecile.

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-04-08 21:29:44 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by JTEM
No abiogenesis, no evolution.

He's insane.

He is correct. No abiogenesis, no evolution. Abiogenesis is part of
evolution, as we all know, and as I just showed a few days ago.

Both abiogenesis and evolution have *something* to do with atheism, and
that is why those topics have raged here for years.

Stop your goddamned lying, Lee. You look the rigid fool and embarrassment to atheists.

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-01 19:30:25 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen.

Asteroid's first error: To limit abiogenesis to Earth is poor logic. With the possibility of panspermia, or pseudo panspermia, the source would be elsewhere.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions.

You have no idea of the scope of "the limitations of chemical reactions". You must plan for the different conditions involving combinations of various chemicals, under physical conditions such as heat, radiation, and pressure, which can vary through time. Show where the limits of every possible chemical reaction has been tried, under the multitude of varying conditions, over eons of time, and shown not to be possible. Fail.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once,

How do you know that, Asteroid? C&P from elsewhere, or your own imagination? Give objective evidence.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible.

Which you have not even begun to do, or given the tiniest bit of evidence that any person or group has exhaustively done so.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Atheism is disprovable.

Not demonstrated, particularly by your "reasoning".

Failure, Asteroid.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

JTEM

2017-04-04 21:26:50 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Asteroid's first error: To limit abiogenesis to Earth is
poor logic. With the possibility of panspermia, or
pseudo panspermia, the source would be elsewhere.

Ah, sloppy thinking but not incorrect thinking!
Abiogenesis elsewhere is still abiogenesis.

Correct?

What you're ultimately demonstrating here is that
there is NO scientific hypothesis on the origins
of life. Not a valid one, anyway. None of the ideas
are falsifiable. There is no way to exclude any of
them.

That ain't "Science"!

...so we have this situation where the collective
could not possibly be further removed from "Science,"
it habitually argues articles of faith thinking it's
arguing "Scientific fact," it's so ignorant, all the
while attack theists for sort of doing the same thing
only they (the theists) know they're operating on
faith...

This should bother you. It should bother you a lot.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/private/159201509253/tumblr_ohov2g1hZm1qccpvo

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-05 01:37:59 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Asteroid's first error: To limit abiogenesis to Earth is
poor logic. With the possibility of panspermia, or
pseudo panspermia, the source would be elsewhere.

Ah, sloppy thinking but not incorrect thinking!
Abiogenesis elsewhere is still abiogenesis.

JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it relate to what Asteroid wrote?

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
Correct?
What you're ultimately demonstrating here is that
there is NO scientific hypothesis on the origins
of life. Not a valid one, anyway. None of the ideas
are falsifiable. There is no way to exclude any of
them.
That ain't "Science"!
...so we have this situation where the collective
could not possibly be further removed from "Science,"
it habitually argues articles of faith thinking it's
arguing "Scientific fact," it's so ignorant, all the
while attack theists for sort of doing the same thing
only they (the theists) know they're operating on
faith...
This should bother you. It should bother you a lot.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/private/159201509253/tumblr_ohov2g1hZm1qccpvo

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-05 01:42:08 UTC

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:37:59 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Asteroid's first error: To limit abiogenesis to Earth is
poor logic. With the possibility of panspermia, or
pseudo panspermia, the source would be elsewhere.

Ah, sloppy thinking but not incorrect thinking!
Abiogenesis elsewhere is still abiogenesis.

JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it
relate to what Asteroid wrote?

The loonie has his own private redefinition for abiogenesis,

All panspermia does, is push it back a level, and there would still
have been abiogenesis elsewhere,

JTEM

2017-04-05 03:32:25 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it relate to what Asteroid wrote?

What he said is true, the only mistake being he
limited things to the earth. It doesn't matter
where abiogenesis is supposed to be occurring --
here on earth, on Mars or some distant nebula --
if it's not occurring than evolution is wrong,
and if evolution is wrong then atheism is wrong.

Period.

At the same time, *All* beliefs concerning
abiogenesis are scientifically baseless. There
is no valid hypothesis on abiogenesis. Nothing
is falsifiable, nothing is scientifically valid.

So...

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Many people think it's
science and it's not -- which makes them ignorant.
Theist, on the other hand, know they're operating
on faith.

Which is WORSE: Operating on faith and knowing
it, or operating on faith and thinking you're
operating scientifically?

I know which one I'd pick...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159199028293

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-05 16:05:49 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it relate to what Asteroid wrote?

What he said is true, the only mistake being he
limited things to the earth. It doesn't matter
where abiogenesis is supposed to be occurring --
here on earth, on Mars or some distant nebula --
if it's not occurring than evolution is wrong,
and if evolution is wrong then atheism is wrong.
Period.
At the same time, *All* beliefs concerning
abiogenesis are scientifically baseless. There
is no valid hypothesis on abiogenesis. Nothing
is falsifiable, nothing is scientifically valid.
So...
Abiogenesis is pure faith. Many people think it's
science and it's not -- which makes them ignorant.
Theist, on the other hand, know they're operating
on faith.
Which is WORSE: Operating on faith and knowing
it, or operating on faith and thinking you're
operating scientifically?
I know which one I'd pick...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159199028293

If you carefully consider the entirety of Asteroid’s argument, it should be apparent that he made a conclusion opposite to yours, concerning abiogenesis.

You say abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. But the point of Asteroid’s post is to claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable, although he uses the term “disprovable”.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-05 16:43:04 UTC

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it relate to what Asteroid wrote?

What he said is true, the only mistake being he
limited things to the earth. It doesn't matter
where abiogenesis is supposed to be occurring --
here on earth, on Mars or some distant nebula --
if it's not occurring than evolution is wrong,
and if evolution is wrong then atheism is wrong.

Why does Chiropterans keep repeating this lie, because he knows
perfectly well that evolution is nothing to do with atheism and vice
versa?

Especially when the majority of Christians apart from (mostly) deluded
American fundamentalists accept it?

Post by JTEM
Period.
At the same time, *All* beliefs concerning
abiogenesis are scientifically baseless. There
is no valid hypothesis on abiogenesis. Nothing
is falsifiable, nothing is scientifically valid.

What "beliefs concerning abiogenesis" were the proven serial liar
lying about?

Abiogenesis, like many other scientific terms, is tautologically a
fact - because at one time there was no life, and subsequently there
was,

However it happened.

What the proven serial liar objects to, is the fact that research into
it hasn't uncovered his imaginary magical superbeing.

Which is hardly science's fault.

So he has dishonestly redefined the word, and is so stupid that he
doesn't revert to the regular meaning when discussing it outside his
religion.

Post by JTEM
So...
Abiogenesis is pure faith.

McShitforbrains' usual deliberate, unsolicited, button-pushing lie.

Does he have some psychological need to tell the world that he is
seriously mentally ill?

Post by JTEM
Many people think it's

Post by JTEM
science and it's not -- which makes them ignorant.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

Post by JTEM
Theist, on the other hand, know they're operating
on faith.

Theists certainly,are - which is worthless.

Post by JTEM
Which is WORSE: Operating on faith and knowing
it, or operating on faith and thinking you're
operating scientifically?

Good thing that's just the proven serial liar's deliberately
dishonest straw man.

Post by JTEM
I know which one I'd pick...

His nose. Eventually his head will cave in because it's already pretty
empty.

Post by JTEM
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159199028293

If you carefully consider the entirety of Asteroids argument, it
should be apparent that he made a conclusion opposite to yours,
concerning abiogenesis.
You say abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

He could falsify it by demonstrating that there was already life at
the point of the big bang. Which there clearly wasn't, because none of
the necessary elements were formed until second-generation and third
generation stars.

Post by JTEM
But the point of Asteroids post is to claim that abiogenesis is
falsifiable, although he uses the term disprovable.
Marvin Sebourn

Why do these sociopathic idiots keep reposting the same old
contentious nonsense, in some cases for decades?

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-05 16:48:16 UTC

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:43:04 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT), Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
JTEM, I'm not sure what you are arguing here, and how does it relate to what Asteroid wrote?

What he said is true, the only mistake being he
limited things to the earth. It doesn't matter
where abiogenesis is supposed to be occurring --
here on earth, on Mars or some distant nebula --
if it's not occurring than evolution is wrong,
and if evolution is wrong then atheism is wrong.

Why does Chiropterans keep repeating this lie, because he knows

The spelling checker did that - I'd typed McShitforbrains'.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
perfectly well that evolution is nothing to do with atheism and vice
versa?
Especially when the majority of Christians apart from (mostly) deluded
American fundamentalists accept it?

Post by JTEM
Period.
At the same time, *All* beliefs concerning
abiogenesis are scientifically baseless. There
is no valid hypothesis on abiogenesis. Nothing
is falsifiable, nothing is scientifically valid.

What "beliefs concerning abiogenesis" were the proven serial liar
lying about?
Abiogenesis, like many other scientific terms, is tautologically a
fact - because at one time there was no life, and subsequently there
was,
However it happened.
What the proven serial liar objects to, is the fact that research into
it hasn't uncovered his imaginary magical superbeing.
Which is hardly science's fault.
So he has dishonestly redefined the word, and is so stupid that he
doesn't revert to the regular meaning when discussing it outside his
religion.

Post by JTEM
So...
Abiogenesis is pure faith.

McShitforbrains' usual deliberate, unsolicited, button-pushing lie.
Does he have some psychological need to tell the world that he is
seriously mentally ill?

Post by JTEM
Many people think it's

Post by JTEM
science and it's not -- which makes them ignorant.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

Post by JTEM
Theist, on the other hand, know they're operating
on faith.

Theists certainly,are - which is worthless.

Post by JTEM
Which is WORSE: Operating on faith and knowing
it, or operating on faith and thinking you're
operating scientifically?

Good thing that's just the proven serial liar's deliberately
dishonest straw man.

Post by JTEM
I know which one I'd pick...

His nose. Eventually his head will cave in because it's already pretty
empty.

Post by JTEM
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159199028293

If you carefully consider the entirety of Asteroids argument, it
should be apparent that he made a conclusion opposite to yours,
concerning abiogenesis.
You say abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific.

He could falsify it by demonstrating that there was already life at
the point of the big bang. Which there clearly wasn't, because none of
the necessary elements were formed until second-generation and third
generation stars.

Post by JTEM
But the point of Asteroids post is to claim that abiogenesis is
falsifiable, although he uses the term disprovable.
Marvin Sebourn

Why do these sociopathic idiots keep reposting the same old
contentious nonsense, in some cases for decades?

JTEM

2017-04-06 06:47:23 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why does Chiropterans keep repeating this lie, because he knows
perfectly well that evolution is nothing to do with atheism and vice
versa?

With evolution excluded, with creationism fact, atheism
gives way to mental illness.

Sober up before you say anything, next time.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159187980428

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-04-06 11:47:50 UTC

Post by Christopher A. Lee
perfectly well that evolution is nothing to do with atheism

Yes, jackass, evolution does have *something* to do with atheism. We know
it and theists know it. Can't you be honest?

JTEM

2017-04-07 05:07:02 UTC

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[...]

It's simple logic, hence your inability to
grasp it:

If abiogenesis is wrong then creationism is
right, and "atheism" is instantly transformed
into mental illness.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159269007633

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-04-07 18:00:30 UTC

Post by JTEM
[...]
It's simple logic, hence your inability to
If abiogenesis is wrong then creationism is
right, and "atheism" is instantly transformed
into mental illness.

Whenever science and religion have disagreed, science has always defeated religion.

Many more defeats are in your future.

And there is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.

Your religion is man-made myth.

JTEM

2017-04-07 23:06:55 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Whenever science and religion have disagreed, science has always defeated religion.

Let's test this claim of yours...

Religion: Mendel and the Mendilian Laws of Inheritance

So-called "Science": Darwin and is itty bitty "Gemmules"
floating down to a rabbits balls in his "Theory of
Pangenesis."

Religion: Copernicus, an ordained Priest who nailed
down the heliocentric solar system.
http://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984

So, no, you have been falsified. And you are an idiot.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159316085932

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-04-08 07:47:41 UTC

Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Whenever science and religion have disagreed, science has always defeated religion.

Let's test this claim of yours...
Religion: Mendel and the Mendilian Laws of Inheritance

Hey idiot, Mendel's work with peas was science, not religion.

If Mendel had shown a connection between praying over peas and
genetics then you'd have a point. Even Mendel knew not to make
claims that prayer could influenced his pea genetics.

Science beat prayer.

JTEM

2017-04-06 06:45:17 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
You say abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. But the point of Asteroid’s post is to claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable, although he uses the term “disprovable”.

The true tragedy here is that you're both right. Every
abiogenesis hypothesis has been falsified. And yet,
abiogenesis persists -- AS THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159187980428

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-07 00:09:17 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
You say abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. But the point of Asteroid’s post is to claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable, although he uses the term “disprovable”.

The true tragedy here is that you're both right. Every
abiogenesis hypothesis has been falsified. And yet,
abiogenesis persists -- AS THIS THREAD DEMONSTRATES.

I'm going to ramble and cover a few points here, JTEM,

In this thread, I stated no personal conclusion of my own regarding abiogenesis. My statement was that Asteroid’s conclusion(s) claiming that abiogenesis was “disprovable" was/were built on faulty premise(s), such as this one: "Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once..." Where did Asteroid find that? I think he might have said that to suggest the second part of his "argument", first concluding that falsifiability was possible, and then suggesting that abiogenesis was so difficult it would be nigh-impossible to do.

It's not that I think the study of abiogenesis is not scientific--I don't--I just didn't think Asteroid crafted a convincing argument.

I’m uncertain which side of the falsifiability argument you hold here--you wrote earlier in the thread—“Every abiogenesis hypothesis has been falsified”. But above you write, concerning abiogenesis “Nothing is falsifiable”.

Even if we make your shift from “falsifiable” to “Nothing (abiogenesis) is falsifiable”, when you write “Every abiogenesis hypothesis has been falsified” the statement is an unsupported assertion.

Sometimes Asteroid's arguments are juvenile and name-calling, but he can argue better than he did in his opening post of his thread. Maybe Asteroid needs to start at the basics of Popper---I suggest he start by reading “Mr. Popper’s Penguins” and go on from there.

Abiogenesis persists, as it should.

Marvin Sebourn

Post by JTEM
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159187980428

JTEM

2017-04-07 04:07:32 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn
I’m uncertain which side of the falsifiability argument you hold here--you wrote earlier in the thread—“Every abiogenesis hypothesis has been falsified”. But above you write, concerning abiogenesis “Nothing is falsifiable”.

You're confusing two VERY different things.

You can have an idea and NOT have a scientifically
valid hypothesis.

Correct?

Concepts CAN and DO exists without being "Scientific."

Abiogenesis is an idea. It is not a scientifically
valid hypothesis. Every last abiogenesis hypothesis
ever devised has failed it's scientific scrutiny, it
has been falsified. They are gone. Dead. Disproven.

The concept persists. It is not a "Scientific" idea.
Yet, so many deluded people BELIEVE in it and think
they're quoting "Science" and not an article of faith.

That is the point.

It's okay to BELIEVE without evidence. It's okay to
maintain faith in an idea despite it's having failed
test after test. But, it's not okay to do these
things and insist that everyone pretend that you're
upholding "Science."

This is what the collective is doing here. It is
attacking theists for being Exactly. Like. Them.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159278596218

Marko TheBeest

2017-04-07 04:27:05 UTC

somebody wrote:
"This is what the collective is doing here. It is attacking theists for being Exactly. Like. Them."

If they were exactly like us... they would be Atheists.

JTEM

2017-04-07 05:03:01 UTC

Post by Marko TheBeest
If they were exactly like us... they would be Atheists.

You're not an atheist.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159269007633

Marko TheBeest

2017-04-07 04:31:42 UTC

The question is: Is atheism scientifically disprovable?

Again:

Atheism is "a lack of belief in god(s)".

How do you propose to scientifically disprove a lack of belief?

JTEM

2017-04-07 05:09:21 UTC

Post by Marko TheBeest
The question is: Is atheism scientifically disprovable?

If that's the question then the collective is wrong,
because it's been arguing that atheism isn't even
related to the topic of abiogenesis.

So YOUR argument is that the collective is wrong.

Post by Marko TheBeest
Atheism is "a lack of belief in god(s)".

No. That would be agnosticism. Agnostics lack a
belief either way.

Like I said; you're not an atheist. You don't even
know what an atheist is!

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159269007633

Smiler

2017-04-02 01:01:15 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine
the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once,

Why 'all at once'? Some of those chemicals could have been frozen in ice
for hundreds, thousands or even millions of years before going on to form
the first living thing.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
all that need to be
demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible.

So when are you going to do that?

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Atheism is disprovable.

A Nobel prize awaits your results.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

m***@gmail.com

2017-04-02 01:16:57 UTC

Definition of atheism

1
a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2
archaic : godlessness especially in conduct

Per our friend Socrates' advice, it is important that we define and agree upon the meaning of our terms or words.

Atheism is "a lack of belief in god(s)".

How do you propose to scientifically disprove my lack of belief?

Or were you trying to say that the existence of a Creationist god can be disproven?

These are two completely different subjects.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-02 01:32:00 UTC

Post by Smiler

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen.

What a fucking moron. A deliberately nasty liar as well as an idiot,

Post by Smiler

Post by A***@yahoo.com
With study of chemicals, we can determine
the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once,

Why 'all at once'? Some of those chemicals could have been frozen in ice
for hundreds, thousands or even millions of years before going on to form
the first living thing.

He knows perfectly well that each stage builds on what is/was already
there.

Post by Smiler

Post by A***@yahoo.com
all that need to be
demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible.

So when are you going to do that?

He can't - because it's been demonstrated in the lab.

Post by Smiler

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Atheism is disprovable.

A Nobel prize awaits your results.

There's nothing to disprove, because atheism is a non-event that is
much the same as his own not believing in the fairies at the bottom of
the garden.

The actual issue, is why this seriously mentally ill individual is so
obsessed with atheism, abiogenesis and evolution, that he lies over
and over again about all three to atheists.

JTEM

2017-04-06 06:49:11 UTC

Post by Smiler
Why 'all at once'? Some of those chemicals could have been frozen in ice
for hundreds, thousands or even millions of years before going on to form
the first living thing.

Google: Argument from ignorance... with a heavy
emphasis on the "Ignorance."

"We don't know... SO ABIOGENESIS!"

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/159187980428

h***@gmail.com

2017-04-02 01:12:11 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument for atheism.

This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

aaa

2017-04-02 05:57:55 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

Yap Honghor

2017-04-03 09:15:53 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

aaa

2017-04-04 03:15:42 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

Smiler

2017-04-04 20:56:51 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation
depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that
need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it
impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to
appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of leprechauns before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

aaa

2017-04-05 05:09:08 UTC

Post by Smiler

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation
depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that
need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it
impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to
appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of leprechauns before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

Fine. Let's play your game. Show me my ignorance of leprechauns
according to you.

Yap Honghor

2017-04-04 22:52:01 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky when not underground???
Or perhaps in the middle of the ocean?

aaa

2017-04-05 05:19:43 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky when not underground???
Or perhaps in the middle of the ocean?

None of that. God exists in the higher spiritual existence that defines
and controls the physical existence. We can not find God in the physical
existence. We can only find and realize God in the spiritual existence.

Yap Honghor

2017-04-06 01:00:07 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky when not underground???
Or perhaps in the middle of the ocean?

None of that. God exists in the higher spiritual existence that defines
and controls the physical existence. We can not find God in the physical
existence. We can only find and realize God in the spiritual existence.

The so-called spirit of any human is his feeling, his behavior and his instinct towards his responsibility as a living creature. That is the spiritual of what you are referring to and is substitution for spiritual/god!

There is no such a thing as a god in this universe!

aaa

2017-04-06 07:35:08 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of
chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all
that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is
disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of
years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the
most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god
has to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that
it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth
below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself
like what you are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky when
not underground??? Or perhaps in the middle of the ocean?

None of that. God exists in the higher spiritual existence that
defines and controls the physical existence. We can not find God in
the physical existence. We can only find and realize God in the
spiritual existence.

The so-called spirit of any human is his feeling, his behavior and
his instinct towards his responsibility as a living creature. That is
the spiritual of what you are referring to and is substitution for
spiritual/god!

The spiritual emotions are not just feelings in the mind. They are real,
and they are important to life because life can not live without them.
Your attempt to dismiss them as mere feelings shows that you have not
really understood what they truly are. You ignore the spiritual aspect
of life, but that's only because you know little about life in general.

Post by Yap Honghor
There is no such a thing as a god in this universe!

The spiritual emotions are the evidence of God. Too bad you don't
realize that.

Yap Honghor

2017-04-07 01:04:44 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of
chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all
that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is
disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of
years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the
most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god
has to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that
it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself
like what you are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky when
not underground??? Or perhaps in the middle of the ocean?

None of that. God exists in the higher spiritual existence that
defines and controls the physical existence. We can not find God in
the physical existence. We can only find and realize God in the
spiritual existence.

The so-called spirit of any human is his feeling, his behavior and
his instinct towards his responsibility as a living creature. That is
the spiritual of what you are referring to and is substitution for
spiritual/god!

The spiritual emotions are not just feelings in the mind. They are real,
and they are important to life because life can not live without them.
Your attempt to dismiss them as mere feelings shows that you have not
really understood what they truly are. You ignore the spiritual aspect
of life, but that's only because you know little about life in general.

Normal human are well aware of what is life!
Only abnormal person and theists do not know such reality and insist upon god/spiritual which is non-existent.

Post by Yap Honghor
There is no such a thing as a god in this universe!

The spiritual emotions are the evidence of God. Too bad you don't
realize that.

The realm of life is what you ignorantly dispute and ignore.
No one agrees with you here....

aaa

2017-04-08 13:32:55 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen.
With study of chemicals, we can determine the
limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions
to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated
is that physical constraints make it impossible.
Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands
of years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is
the most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a
god has to appear in the sky when you have no way to
prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the
earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of
yourself like what you are doing right now.

I thought your deity is almighty, if it is not in the sky
when not underground??? Or perhaps in the middle of the
ocean?

None of that. God exists in the higher spiritual existence
that defines and controls the physical existence. We can not
find God in the physical existence. We can only find and
realize God in the spiritual existence.

The so-called spirit of any human is his feeling, his behavior
and his instinct towards his responsibility as a living creature.
That is the spiritual of what you are referring to and is
substitution for spiritual/god!

The spiritual emotions are not just feelings in the mind. They are
real, and they are important to life because life can not live
without them. Your attempt to dismiss them as mere feelings shows
that you have not really understood what they truly are. You ignore
the spiritual aspect of life, but that's only because you know
little about life in general.

Normal human are well aware of what is life! Only abnormal person and
theists do not know such reality and insist upon god/spiritual which
is non-existent.

You are still only demonstrating your utter ignorance of the spiritual
nature of life. Why am I not surprised?

Post by Yap Honghor
There is no such a thing as a god in this universe!

The spiritual emotions are the evidence of God. Too bad you don't
realize that.

The realm of life is what you ignorantly dispute and ignore. No one
agrees with you here....

The realm of life has no death. The realm where there is death is not a
realm of life. It's the realm of lifeless. It's why life suffers in the
lifeless realm.

Davej

2017-04-04 23:08:00 UTC

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

aaa

2017-04-05 05:25:15 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Alex W.

2017-04-06 00:06:18 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Marko TheBeest

2017-04-06 00:27:23 UTC

somebody wrote:
"Why do these sociopathic idiots keep reposting the same old contentious nonsense, in some cases for decades?"

They HAVE to.

The only alternatives are questioning their brainsoiling or keeping it to themselves.

You know, like that beautiful old christian saying, "Live and Let Live".

aaa

2017-04-06 00:57:36 UTC

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence. God's existence is spiritual. We need to develop our
spiritual sense. It is also called the love sense. We can't find God by
seeing or hearing God, but we can find God by sensing the love from God.

Yap Honghor

2017-04-06 01:08:54 UTC

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence. God's existence is spiritual. We need to develop our
spiritual sense. It is also called the love sense. We can't find God by
seeing or hearing God, but we can find God by sensing the love from God.

Idiot, you ignore the vast love and sacrifices by your parents, instead prefer the love from an evil imaginative deity????????????

You do have a sick mind?

aaa

2017-04-06 06:46:52 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just
stupid. That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any
stupidity that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in
ranges inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to
rethink that particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense
to detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky.
However, neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect
God's existence. God's existence is spiritual. We need to develop
our spiritual sense. It is also called the love sense. We can't
find God by seeing or hearing God, but we can find God by sensing
the love from God.

Idiot, you ignore the vast love and sacrifices by your parents,
instead prefer the love from an evil imaginative deity????????????
You do have a sick mind?

That's just your intentional misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The
sickness is only in your mind instead.

Smiler

2017-04-07 00:32:58 UTC

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any
stupidity that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence.

Almost as if it doesn't exist.

<snip lame unevidenced excuses why the supposed god cannot be seen nor
heard>

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

aaa

2017-04-07 10:32:00 UTC

Post by Smiler

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any
stupidity that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence.

Almost as if it doesn't exist.

To the spiritually blind, yes.

Post by Smiler
<snip lame unevidenced excuses why the supposed god cannot be seen nor
heard>

John Locke

2017-04-07 02:31:06 UTC

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence. God's existence is spiritual. We need to develop our
spiritual sense. It is also called the love sense. We can't find God by
seeing or hearing God, but we can find God by sensing the love from God.

...I'll sense the "love" from your god if the old fart will leave a
bag of money on my front porch...oh, and a case of Jack.

aaa

2017-04-07 10:34:53 UTC

Post by John Locke

Post by Alex W.

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

Since you are blind as a bat to God's spiritual existence, any stupidity
that you can think of will only be yours alone.

Bearing in mind that bats have extremely acute perception in ranges
inaccessible to "mere" human vision, you may wish to rethink that
particular simile.

Yes. Bats are smart animals. They can rely on their hearing sense to
detect objects. It gives them free rein in the night sky. However,
neither the hearing sense, nor the visual sense can detect God's
existence. God's existence is spiritual. We need to develop our
spiritual sense. It is also called the love sense. We can't find God by
seeing or hearing God, but we can find God by sensing the love from God.

...I'll sense the "love" from your god if the old fart will leave a
bag of money on my front porch...oh, and a case of Jack.

No, you never will. Love is not a business deal. It can only be found in
real life.

Marko TheBeest

2017-04-07 15:44:47 UTC

somebody wrote:
"Like I said; you're not an atheist. You don't even know what an atheist is!"

a·the·ist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Tim

2017-04-07 16:03:09 UTC

Post by Marko TheBeest
"Like I said; you're not an atheist. You don't even know what an atheist is!"
a·the·ist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-07 19:03:22 UTC

9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.

While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

Tim

2017-04-07 21:14:14 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-08 15:40:40 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

If there's a way to discriminate between scrap metal and gold I haven't tried it. I've heard of dowsers - usually someone's grandfather - who were able to dowse for gold. I've heard that attaching gold to the rods enables this.

Tim

2017-04-08 15:53:59 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

If there's a way to discriminate between scrap metal and gold I haven't tried it. I've heard of dowsers - usually someone's grandfather - who were able to dowse for gold. I've heard that attaching gold to the rods enables this.

The question was:So why aren't you filthy rich?

What part did you not understand?

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-08 15:44:28 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

Tim

2017-04-08 15:55:10 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.

Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-08 16:28:16 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.
Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

Dude, I just gave you answer. I don't know how to discriminate gold from cheap scrap metal. Plus a dowsing rod can pick up a tiny speck of flour gold. some people have figured out a way to do it, I haven't.

Tim

2017-04-08 16:41:50 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.
Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

Dude,

Save that talk for your rodeo pals.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
I just gave you answer.

No, you simply evaded the question.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
I don't know how to discriminate gold from cheap scrap metal.

So stop dowsing in a scrap metal yard.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Plus a dowsing rod can pick up a tiny speck of flour gold. some people >have figured out a way to do it, I haven't.

Where's your evidence of that?

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-08 16:34:25 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.
Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

Oh, supposing I learned to dowse for gold, that doesn't mean you can just go outside and get it. You have to find a spot that contains it, and also the gold has to be easy to dig at. You might have to drive hundreds of miles to find it. Digging is not easy. you might need a jack hammer. Then, while looking for gold you'll have to contend with rough terrain, trees, bushes, rocks, poison ivy, mud, water, fenced off property and you name it. It might be in the middle of a river. It's not as easy as you think. And when you dig for it, it might be too small to find. Try finding a speck of gold in a haystack. You'd need a microscope to see it.

Tim

2017-04-08 16:41:38 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.
Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

Oh, supposing I learned to dowse for gold, that doesn't mean you can just go outside and get it.

You said you were very successful, now you don't sound so sure.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
You have to find a spot that contains it, and also the gold has to be easy to dig at.

Errm, that's what the dowsing rods are supposed to do. It's no use finding gold and then pointing your rods at it and say "hey look, they move."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
You might have to drive hundreds of miles to find it. Digging is not easy. you might need a jack hammer. Then, while looking for gold you'll have to contend with rough terrain, trees, bushes, rocks, poison ivy, mud, water, fenced off property and you name it. It might be in the middle of a river. It's not as easy as you think.

As I think? I say it nonsense.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
And when you dig for it, it might be too small to find. Try finding a speck of gold in a haystack. You'd need a microscope to see it.

So as usual you have no evidence that dowsing actually works.

A***@yahoo.com

2017-04-08 21:43:28 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

So why aren't you filthy rich?

I understand that you can dowse for a tiny speck of gold. You could put a lot of work into digging and not find it. The best way would be to use some metal detector that showed a visual image of what you're looking at.

You claimed you were very successful at dowsing for metals. Now you appear to be retreating.
Anyway, the question was: Why aren't you filthy rich?

Oh, supposing I learned to dowse for gold, that doesn't mean you can just go outside and get it.

You said you were very successful, now you don't sound so sure.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
You have to find a spot that contains it, and also the gold has to be easy to dig at.

Errm, that's what the dowsing rods are supposed to do. It's no use finding gold and then pointing your rods at it and say "hey look, they move."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
You might have to drive hundreds of miles to find it. Digging is not easy. you might need a jack hammer. Then, while looking for gold you'll have to contend with rough terrain, trees, bushes, rocks, poison ivy, mud, water, fenced off property and you name it. It might be in the middle of a river. It's not as easy as you think.

As I think? I say it nonsense.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
And when you dig for it, it might be too small to find. Try finding a speck of gold in a haystack. You'd need a microscope to see it.

So as usual you have no evidence that dowsing actually works.

Usually people who find gold don't use any instrument. They just have the tenacity, time and effort to keep on looking till they find it. And when they find a lot it's usually a secret spot that they keep to themselves.

Tim

2017-04-07 21:14:51 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
9:03 AMTim
- show quoted text -
Don't waste your time. jtem is a gay catholic who believes dowsing rods are a good way to find water. Reason and science don't work on him.
While I have never tried to find water with rods, I have been very successful with finding metal.

I'll believe you after you claim Randi's million dollar prize.

John Locke

2017-04-05 17:43:51 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by aaa
You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.

Maybe we need to realize your God's ignorance? He's just stupid.
That could explain quite a lot.

...it's pretty damned stupid to lay around rotting in a dark, humid,
smelly old tomb for three days when all you have to do is apply a bit
of god magic and get fuck up and out of there.

Cloud Hobbit

2017-04-05 00:28:26 UTC

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the
early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints
make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful argument
for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to appear
in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what you
are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything else, then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane thoughts of imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.

There is no god.

%

2017-04-05 00:50:45 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on
the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we
can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years, no
pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful
argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to
appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the
case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what
you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything else,
then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane thoughts of
imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

there are many gods

aaa

2017-04-06 01:19:15 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of
chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds
of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be
demonstrated is that physical constraints make it
impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years,
no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful
argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has
to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's
the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what
you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything else,
then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane thoughts of
imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual reality is
the true reality. Reality has to be always real and true. It has to be
reliable for people to rely on. Your physical world is never reliable.
It's full of hidden deceptions that can cause people to make serious
mistakes. In fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can barely catch
up with the changing of the world. It's never something that people can
rely on. It's always something that people must question and doubt. When
such so called reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater
reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this physical
reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be God.

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-06 02:13:53 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of
chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds
of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be
demonstrated is that physical constraints make it
impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years,
no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful
argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has
to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's
the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what
you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything else,
then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane thoughts of
imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual reality is
the true reality. Reality has to be always real and true. It has to be
reliable for people to rely on. Your physical world is never reliable.
It's full of hidden deceptions that can cause people to make serious
mistakes. In fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can barely catch
up with the changing of the world. It's never something that people can
rely on. It's always something that people must question and doubt. When
such so called reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater
reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this physical
reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly show that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never again buy the kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they may be.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

aaa

2017-04-06 06:44:44 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations
of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all
that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is
disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of
years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the
most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god
has to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that
it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth
below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself
like what you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything
else, then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane
thoughts of imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual
reality is the true reality. Reality has to be always real and
true. It has to be reliable for people to rely on. Your physical
world is never reliable. It's full of hidden deceptions that can
cause people to make serious mistakes. In fact, it's changing so
fast that the mind can barely catch up with the changing of the
world. It's never something that people can rely on. It's always
something that people must question and doubt. When such so called
reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater reality
that we can rely and are relying on to judge this physical reality.
That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly show
that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never again buy
the kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they may be.

Yet, you fail to argue with such simple point that even a kindergarten
kid can understand.

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-06 23:01:55 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With
study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations
of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all
that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is
disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of
years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the
most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god
has to appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that
it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself
like what you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything
else, then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane
thoughts of imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual
reality is the true reality. Reality has to be always real and
true. It has to be reliable for people to rely on. Your physical
world is never reliable. It's full of hidden deceptions that can
cause people to make serious mistakes. In fact, it's changing so
fast that the mind can barely catch up with the changing of the
world. It's never something that people can rely on. It's always
something that people must question and doubt. When such so called
reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater reality
that we can rely and are relying on to judge this physical reality.
That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly show
that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never again buy
the kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they may be.

Yet, you fail to argue with such simple point that even a kindergarten
kid can understand.

aaa, I wasn't making an argument, only making a comment. But if I ever argue with you, I promise to use simple, short words and speak slowly, so you might understand.

Of course, I don't understand or speak "Troll" very well, so communication between us may still be a problem.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

aaa

2017-04-07 10:30:40 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen.
With study of chemicals, we can determine the
limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions
to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated
is that physical constraints make it impossible.
Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands
of years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is
the most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a
god has to appear in the sky when you have no way to
prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the
earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of
yourself like what you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before
anything else, then you won't be troubled anymore with
foolish, insane thoughts of imaginary creatures showing you
to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual
reality is the true reality. Reality has to be always real and
true. It has to be reliable for people to rely on. Your
physical world is never reliable. It's full of hidden
deceptions that can cause people to make serious mistakes. In
fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can barely catch up
with the changing of the world. It's never something that
people can rely on. It's always something that people must
question and doubt. When such so called reality is questioned,
it shows that there is a greater reality that we can rely and
are relying on to judge this physical reality. That is God's
reality, therefore, there has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly
show that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never
again buy the kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they
may be.

Yet, you fail to argue with such simple point that even a
kindergarten kid can understand.

aaa, I wasn't making an argument, only making a comment. But if I
ever argue with you, I promise to use simple, short words and speak
slowly, so you might understand.

Your comment has nothing to do with the debate. It's just your personal
attack which you can not even support with your better understanding of
the issue under discussion. What you are doing is no different from a troll.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Of course, I don't understand or speak "Troll" very well, so
communication between us may still be a problem.

Your action tells me differently. You appear quite good at trolling.

Marvin Sebourn

2017-04-07 22:36:42 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes
abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen.
With study of chemicals, we can determine the
limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions
to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated
is that physical constraints make it impossible.
Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands
of years, no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is
the most powerful argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a
god has to appear in the sky when you have no way to
prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the
earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything
else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of
yourself like what you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before
anything else, then you won't be troubled anymore with
foolish, insane thoughts of imaginary creatures showing you
to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual
reality is the true reality. Reality has to be always real and
true. It has to be reliable for people to rely on. Your
physical world is never reliable. It's full of hidden
deceptions that can cause people to make serious mistakes. In
fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can barely catch up
with the changing of the world. It's never something that
people can rely on. It's always something that people must
question and doubt. When such so called reality is questioned,
it shows that there is a greater reality that we can rely and
are relying on to judge this physical reality. That is God's
reality, therefore, there has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly
show that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never
again buy the kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they
may be.

Yet, you fail to argue with such simple point that even a
kindergarten kid can understand.

aaa, I wasn't making an argument, only making a comment. But if I
ever argue with you, I promise to use simple, short words and speak
slowly, so you might understand.

Your comment has nothing to do with the debate. It's just your personal
attack which you can not even support with your better understanding of
the issue under discussion. What you are doing is no different from a troll.
"When such so called reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater
reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this physical
reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be God".

Nope, no intelligence exhibited there, much less achieving the level of a debate. Sounds somewhat like a postmodernist generator operating on brown-out voltage.

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Of course, I don't understand or speak "Troll" very well, so
communication between us may still be a problem.

Your action tells me differently. You appear quite good at trolling.

No, thanks for the compliment, but I feel I do better just anti-trolling, such as against your amusing...nonsense.

Now go away, you bore me. But I predict you will reply anyhow.

Marvin Sebourn

aaa

2017-04-08 13:45:35 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:59 PM UTC+8, aaa

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 1:57:52 AM UTC+8,

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it
takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it
happen. With study of chemicals, we can
determine the limitations of chemical
reactions. Since life creation depends on
hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that
physical constraints make it impossible.
Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of
thousands of years, no pixie had appeared in the
sky....that is the most powerful argument for
atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that
a god has to appear in the sky when you have no way
to prove that it's the case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the
earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before
anything else. Otherwise, you are only going to make a
fool of yourself like what you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before
anything else, then you won't be troubled anymore with
foolish, insane thoughts of imaginary creatures showing
you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's
spiritual reality is the true reality. Reality has to be
always real and true. It has to be reliable for people to
rely on. Your physical world is never reliable. It's full
of hidden deceptions that can cause people to make serious
mistakes. In fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can
barely catch up with the changing of the world. It's never
something that people can rely on. It's always something
that people must question and doubt. When such so called
reality is questioned, it shows that there is a greater
reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this
physical reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there
has to be God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly
show that the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to
never again buy the kindergarten level ones, no matter how
cheap they may be.

Yet, you fail to argue with such simple point that even a
kindergarten kid can understand.

aaa, I wasn't making an argument, only making a comment. But if
I ever argue with you, I promise to use simple, short words and
speak slowly, so you might understand.

Your comment has nothing to do with the debate. It's just your
personal attack which you can not even support with your better
understanding of the issue under discussion. What you are doing is
no different from a troll.
"When such so called reality is questioned, it shows that there is
a greater reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this
physical reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be
God".

Nope, no intelligence exhibited there, much less achieving the level
of a debate. Sounds somewhat like a postmodernist generator operating
on brown-out voltage.

I can not see why you wouldn't be able to understand what I said. I'm
simply showing that God's reality is not alien to any of us. It's
something we always have to rely on to live our life. Without God's
reality, we wouldn't be able to know anything in this world.

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Marvin Sebourn
Of course, I don't understand or speak "Troll" very well, so
communication between us may still be a problem.

Your action tells me differently. You appear quite good at
trolling.

No, thanks for the compliment, but I feel I do better just
anti-trolling, such as against your amusing...nonsense.
Now go away, you bore me. But I predict you will reply anyhow.

Of course. You can't stop me because I'm not trolling either.

:-)

Smiler

2017-04-07 00:36:15 UTC

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on
the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we
can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life
creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at
once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical
constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

In the history of mankind for hundreds of thousands of years,
no pixie had appeared in the sky....that is the most powerful
argument for atheism.
This fact has no room for argument!!!!!

That's a fact based purely on your imagination that a god has to
appear in the sky when you have no way to prove that it's the
case.

You mean your sky pixie is a worm, living inside the earth below us?

You need to realize your ignorance of God before anything else.
Otherwise, you are only going to make a fool of yourself like what
you are doing right now.

You need to realize your ignorance of reality before anything else,
then you won't be troubled anymore with foolish, insane thoughts of
imaginary creatures showing you to be a fool.
There is no god.

Your reality to me is only an illusion. Only God's spiritual reality is
the true reality. Reality has to be always real and true. It has to be
reliable for people to rely on. Your physical world is never reliable.
It's full of hidden deceptions that can cause people to make serious
mistakes. In fact, it's changing so fast that the mind can barely catch
up with the changing of the world. It's never something that people can
rely on. It's always something that people must question and doubt.
When such so called reality is questioned, it shows that there is a
greater reality that we can rely and are relying on to judge this
physical reality. That is God's reality, therefore, there has to be
God.

I think the posts of aaa, and specifically this one, clearly show that
the next time we order alt.atheism trolls, to never again buy the
kindergarten level ones, no matter how cheap they may be.

aaa has reached kindergarten level? Who knew?

--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

Hope Simmers

2017-04-05 16:27:06 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

Most of those responding seem to have missed the date of your post.

Funny stuff!

Malcolm McMahon

2017-04-06 14:03:13 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

Wrong. The crux of atheism is finding none of the claims of god or gods convincing.

We know abiogenesis occurred. You can get by perfectly well as an atheist with "nobody (yet) knows how it happened".

Unlike theists, atheists don't imagine that everything has been explained or that there are facts out there that nobody knows.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-04-06 14:48:38 UTC

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT), Malcolm McMahon

Post by Malcolm McMahon

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early

A deliberately button=pushing lie.

Post by Malcolm McMahon

Post by A***@yahoo.com
earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the
limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds
of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated

The proven serial liar knows perfectly well it didn't happen all at
once.

Post by Malcolm McMahon

Post by A***@yahoo.com
is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Wrong. The crux of atheism is finding none of the claims of god or gods convincing.

He knows - and was just trying to annoy/.

Religion brings this out in people.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
We know abiogenesis occurred. You can get by perfectly well as an atheist
with "nobody (yet) knows how it happened".

And without even giving it a thought.

I was atheist before I'd even heard of evolution or abiogenesis -
because I wasn't theist, not having been brainwashed in childhood to
believe in an imaginary magical superbeing.

Post by Malcolm McMahon
Unlike theists, atheists don't imagine that everything has been
explained or that there are facts out there that nobody knows.

The actual issue is, what does this moron imagine he achieves by lying
to us about ourselves - apart from giving us an insight into his
mental pathology.

hypatiab7

2017-04-06 15:40:24 UTC

Post by A***@yahoo.com
The crux of atheism is in the fact that it takes abiogenesis on the early earth to make it happen. With study of chemicals, we can determine the limitations of chemical reactions. Since life creation depends on hundreds of chemical reactions to occur at once, all that need to be demonstrated is that physical constraints make it impossible. Atheism is disprovable.

No, it isn't. You don't determine what is too many changes for any chemical reaction. What is too complicated for your limited mind isn't too much for science.

Aside from which, abiogenesis has nothing to do with atheism. Uneducated
clods like you never could tell the difference between atheism and science.

!! Atheist ------------------------------

2017-04-06 16:21:58 UTC

Post by hypatiab7
Aside from which, abiogenesis has nothing to do with atheism.

Wrong, abiogenesis has *something* to do with atheism; it is a plausible
alternative to the implausible Poof Hypothesis. We know it and the
theists know it, that's why it's forever here in alt.atheism. So be honest.

150 Replies
9 Views
Permalink to this page
Disable enhanced parsing

Thread Navigation

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-01 17:57:50 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-01 18:43:15 UTC

% 2017-04-01 18:53:22 UTC

Davej 2017-04-01 19:02:56 UTC

John Locke 2017-04-01 19:39:43 UTC

Don Martin 2017-04-02 12:51:22 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-04 21:16:28 UTC

Cloud Hobbit 2017-04-05 00:36:34 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-05 03:26:33 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 06:33:02 UTC

Mitchell Holman 2017-04-06 12:24:03 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-06 13:03:53 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 03:59:10 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 22:40:18 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-07 01:10:10 UTC

aaa 2017-04-08 13:25:22 UTC

Mitchell Holman 2017-04-08 15:26:46 UTC

Mitchell Holman 2017-04-07 01:54:36 UTC

aaa 2017-04-08 13:28:16 UTC

hypatiab7 2017-04-06 15:41:46 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-08 20:50:33 UTC

!! Atheist ------------------------------ 2017-04-08 21:29:44 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-01 19:30:25 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-04 21:26:50 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-05 01:37:59 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-05 01:42:08 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-05 03:32:25 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-05 16:05:49 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-05 16:43:04 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-05 16:48:16 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-06 06:47:23 UTC

!! Atheist ------------------------------ 2017-04-06 11:47:50 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 05:07:02 UTC

!! Atheist ------------------------------ 2017-04-07 18:00:30 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 23:06:55 UTC

!! Atheist ------------------------------ 2017-04-08 07:47:41 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-06 06:45:17 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-07 00:09:17 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 04:07:32 UTC

Marko TheBeest 2017-04-07 04:27:05 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 05:03:01 UTC

Marko TheBeest 2017-04-07 04:31:42 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-07 05:09:21 UTC

Smiler 2017-04-02 01:01:15 UTC

m***@gmail.com 2017-04-02 01:16:57 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-02 01:32:00 UTC

JTEM 2017-04-06 06:49:11 UTC

h***@gmail.com 2017-04-02 01:12:11 UTC

aaa 2017-04-02 05:57:55 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-03 09:15:53 UTC

aaa 2017-04-04 03:15:42 UTC

Smiler 2017-04-04 20:56:51 UTC

aaa 2017-04-05 05:09:08 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-04 22:52:01 UTC

aaa 2017-04-05 05:19:43 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-06 01:00:07 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 07:35:08 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-07 01:04:44 UTC

aaa 2017-04-08 13:32:55 UTC

Davej 2017-04-04 23:08:00 UTC

aaa 2017-04-05 05:25:15 UTC

Alex W. 2017-04-06 00:06:18 UTC

Marko TheBeest 2017-04-06 00:27:23 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 00:57:36 UTC

Yap Honghor 2017-04-06 01:08:54 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 06:46:52 UTC

Smiler 2017-04-07 00:32:58 UTC

aaa 2017-04-07 10:32:00 UTC

John Locke 2017-04-07 02:31:06 UTC

aaa 2017-04-07 10:34:53 UTC

Marko TheBeest 2017-04-07 15:44:47 UTC

Tim 2017-04-07 16:03:09 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-07 19:03:22 UTC

Tim 2017-04-07 21:14:14 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-08 15:40:40 UTC

Tim 2017-04-08 15:53:59 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-08 15:44:28 UTC

Tim 2017-04-08 15:55:10 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-08 16:28:16 UTC

Tim 2017-04-08 16:41:50 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-08 16:34:25 UTC

Tim 2017-04-08 16:41:38 UTC

A***@yahoo.com 2017-04-08 21:43:28 UTC

Tim 2017-04-07 21:14:51 UTC

John Locke 2017-04-05 17:43:51 UTC

Cloud Hobbit 2017-04-05 00:28:26 UTC

% 2017-04-05 00:50:45 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 01:19:15 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-06 02:13:53 UTC

aaa 2017-04-06 06:44:44 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-06 23:01:55 UTC

aaa 2017-04-07 10:30:40 UTC

Marvin Sebourn 2017-04-07 22:36:42 UTC

aaa 2017-04-08 13:45:35 UTC

Smiler 2017-04-07 00:36:15 UTC

Hope Simmers 2017-04-05 16:27:06 UTC

Malcolm McMahon 2017-04-06 14:03:13 UTC

Christopher A. Lee 2017-04-06 14:48:38 UTC

hypatiab7 2017-04-06 15:40:24 UTC

!! Atheist ------------------------------ 2017-04-06 16:21:58 UTC

about - legalese

Loading...