Is doing evil a necessity of life?

[ding]

I don't believe that any more than I believe you are a lesbian.

What you believe is usually absurd.

That doesn't sound like a denial to me.

I've got you so confused you don't know what I am, lol.

I know exactly what you are and I feel bad for you.

So what am I?

A very sad person.

 

[Mudda]

What you believe is usually absurd.

That doesn't sound like a denial to me.

I've got you so confused you don't know what I am, lol.

I know exactly what you are and I feel bad for you.

So what am I?

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

 

[ding]

That doesn't sound like a denial to me.

I've got you so confused you don't know what I am, lol.

I know exactly what you are and I feel bad for you.

So what am I?

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

 

[Mudda]

I've got you so confused you don't know what I am, lol.

I know exactly what you are and I feel bad for you.

So what am I?

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

 

[ding]

I know exactly what you are and I feel bad for you.

So what am I?

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

 

[Mudda]

So what am I?

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

 

[ding]

A very sad person.

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

 

[Mudda]

Wrong again, the streak is still alive!

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

 

[ding]

Your actions belie your words.

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

 

[Mudda]

You're the one whining about me being sad, it's called projecting.

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

 

[ding]

Only when it is not supported by evidence. In your case you are so sour that you can only be described as being toxic.

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

 

[Mudda]

You're the one who spews unsupported nonsense. I'm just pointing it out. And that burns you. Good.

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

 

[ding]

This is you rationalizing your behavior.

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

 

[Mudda]

It's a public service to smarten up the deluded. No thanks necessary.

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

 

[ding]

Who are the deluded?

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

 

[Mudda]

Those would live their life based on an illusion that can't be realistically or scientifically proven.

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

 

[ding]

Why default to the atheist position if you are agnostic?

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

 

[Mudda]

It's an illusion, like atheism, until proven scientifically.

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

 

[ding]

That is not logical because that is what you just did. You chose without scientific proof that God doesn't exist. By definition you can't believe that.

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

 

[Mudda]

No, I choose to wait for scientific proof for god. You had it backwards, as usual.

No. That isn't what you are doing. You are rejecting it outright as if you know. You have already admitted that you don't know. So you don't know if anything I say is wrong.

No, I simply reject YOU and your arguments.

No. You can't because you don't know. Therefore, you are an atheist and not an agnostic. You don't even know what you are.

I reject your arguments because I've checked them out and rejected your lack of science. So what you argue can't possibly exist. No. Chance. Whatsoever.

That's bullshit. By definition you can't reject anything. That violates the "don't know clause" of agnostics local 516. Try again.

It's still possible that a creator exists, but you haven't shown that, so I reject your lame ass arguments. See how easy that was?