Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Hollie]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

Stop, Emily! People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

The bottom line: the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is a FACT. It is a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The FACT of the existence of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, or the FACT of the nature of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is not controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is I who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.

Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.

Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

Stop, Emily! People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

The bottom line: the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is a FACT. It is a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The FACT of the existence of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, or the FACT of the nature of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is not controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is I who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.

Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.

Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.

Drooling idiot.

 

[BreezeWood]

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

.......................


the mere fluke of mdr ...


how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.

.

 

[Hollie]

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

Stop, Emily! People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

The bottom line: the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is a FACT. It is a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The FACT of the existence of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, or the FACT of the nature of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is not controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is I who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.

Actually, you are taking something subjective, undemonstrated, purely opinion and drenched in your religious dogma and attempting to make it something it is not.

Basically, you're a failed snake oil salesman.

Drooling idiot.

And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

 

[emilynghiem]

RE: LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
RE: TAG and all discussion of Logic etc.

Can we agree to form teams with people willing to discuss and refine how to communicate TO REACH AGREEMENT on you and Justin are saying about TAG and Logic.

If they don't intend to agree, they go into a DIFFERENT track.
We can't have traffic going both ways, we need to separate the lanes.

And then for ALL the traffic that doesn't like that lane, for whatever reason,
we pick up with the idea of science and spiritual healing as the focus.

Can we please try that.

If the "picker eaters" we are trying to feed spit out the broccoli,
then maybe carrots or peas or something else might get them to eat!

That is my best suggestion.

Can we agree to reserve the TAG and logic discussion to those who either get it, or WANT to get it.

And redirect traffic elsewhere who does NOT get it or does not WANT to get it.

These people here are pretty dang honest.
The kids will TELL you to your FACE what vegetables they will or will not eat.

I hate to see you frustrated when this can be reworked.

If wires are crossing, let's match them up to better circuits that flow naturally.

M.D. something is amiss if these things aren't connecting.

Let's get better organized, and I bet these glitches
and insults will stop. People here are plenty intelligent,
there is some stubbornness, defensiveness and pecking-order-politics expressed,
but generally I see that people here have integrity and will
put the truth first before their own preferences and will work with others.

I see a lot of people trying to be tolerant and work through this anyway.

Let's keep trying to organize in better ways than this.

You can't have flute players in the trumpet section,
and baseball players on the football field.
We've got to get it straight who plays what
instrument or position best, and support them in that!

M.D. if this is not your field, then I can try to help you reorganize.
But sticking people where they don't belong is never going to work.

I know you've heard about not throwing pearls before swine,
but this is more like "singing to a pig." You waste your words and annoy the pig.

Let's save your TAG to those who respond.
I just thought of another person who might join you on that!

If you connect with the right people, you won't have time for
people who don't connect or have time for this either.

Let them work on some auxiliary work, like spiritual healing,
to pave the way for greater openness and understanding.
some people aren't ready yet and have other work to do first!

Thanks M.D. let me try to chase down
Wallis the theologian in the Phillippines
who is a theology teacher and might have advice
on how to reach more of the secular types on this approach.

My friend Dr. Kevin said this approach may not work for everyone,
and to look up Approaches to God by Maritain for more ideas that may help.

I believe the basic idea is right, but working WITH people is a larger
process AROUND TAG, and they bring more stuff to work through as their own spiritual process.

that's just the nature of the beast.
people need to process through things before they can get on the same page.

So please don't worry, even if it is negative rejection or objection that comes out,
it is still part of the positive process of reconciling to eventually reach a clear and unified understanding.

there is much more positive here than negatives,
and we just have to keep going to get to the positive points.
the negatives are coming out to be resolved and healed
so the point is to forgive, correct and let those go.

If we are holding on to the negatives, that's backwards!

The point is to clean OUT the negatives
so we hold on the positive points of agreement that are left!

 

[emilynghiem]

the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

And in two sentences, your argument was shot down in flames.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

Dear M.D. Rawlings:
RE: jihadists above ^
the problems are
A. they do not act out of forgiveness and restoration which is Christ Jesus
but unforgiveness and retribution which is Antichrist
B. they do not respect "due process of law"
but act as judge, jury and execution

So MD if you condemn people by unforgiveness, and do not give them
equal consideration to defend their objections and clarify what they mean,
you make similar mistakes, just on a verbal level while they take jihad to mean physical war.

MD. as long as you take an ADVERSARIAL position
instead of collaborative that's why people fight you back.

Might we try a more inclusive approach that invites not rejects participants.

Dear Hollie:
Are you willing to form a team around
science and spiritual healing

What if we make an agreement between theists and nontheists
if it turns out that proving/demonstrating spiritual healing using
science and medicine WORKS BETTER to explain to nontheists
than stating arguing or defending TAG, then could we AGREE
to use that method in place or in addition to the other approach.

If you don't relate to TAG what about using science
to show the process of spiritual healing as consistent
with both natural science and with spiritual processes taught in Christianity and other faiths.

What about that approach
would that help to focus on something more meaningful

Thanks!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

.......................


the mere fluke of mdr ...


how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.

.

Dude! I cannot speak to that potentiality, and neither can you . . . except as a matter of personal belief. I'm not a dog or a cat or a bird or a flower. You have some special knowledge. Fine. Have it. It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution. That is all. I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief. Your argument is with Boss, not with me. I understand you; you refuse to understand me or the objective facts of human cognition. You simply will not pull back out of your bias to do so. And that's the absolutely last word I have for you.

 

[Hollie]

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

.......................


the mere fluke of mdr ...


how to reply, when you refuse to answer why "your" cognition only applies to humans when all living beings exhibit the same expression or more shamefully why they would be excluded ... for its existence to be Spiritual.

.

Dude! I cannot speak to that potentiality, and neither can you . . . except as a matter of personal belief. I'm not a dog or a cat or a bird or a flower. You have some special knowledge. Fine. Have it. It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution. That is all. I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief. Your argument is with Boss, not with me. I understand you; you refuse to understand me or the objective facts of human cognition. You simply will not pull back out of your bias to do so. And that's the absolutely last word I have for you.

The objective facts of human cognition have lead mankind to the Scientific Method and the discipline of science. Your hope to drag mankind into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition is a fools' errand.

 

[Boss]

It's not objectively demonstrable at this point, though it is demonstrably possible in the light of the objective facts of The Seven Things in terms of some lower standard of divine attribution. That is all. I don't objectively preclude the possibility of your belief. Your argument is with Boss, not with me.

No, his argument is with YOU, ass clown. Now, if something is admittedly "possible" in light of objective facts, where the hell do you get off proclaiming "some lower standard" of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority?

You're such a total and complete jerk you can't even maintain objectivity through a single paragraph. I am sure Breeze Wood's God is relieved that you don't objectively preclude the possibility of his beliefs, but I am sure He is puzzled by this "lower standard" you've arbitrarily applied in your own self-aggrandizing way. What a fucking blowhard!

smh

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No, his argument is with YOU, ass clown. Now, if something is admittedly "possible" in light of objective facts, where the hell do you get off proclaiming "some lower standard" of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority?

You're such a total and complete jerk you can't even maintain objectivity through a single paragraph. I am sure Breeze Wood's God is relieved that you don't objectively preclude the possibility of his beliefs, but I am sure He is puzzled by this "lower standard" you've arbitrarily applied in your own self-aggrandizing way. What a fucking blowhard!

smh

I do not arbitrarily preclude the potentiality of pantheism/panentheism, as the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin do not necessarily allow that. Why? Because the notion of pantheism/panentheism is that God was in fact the very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution before He merge with His creation and from that point on was no longer self-aware and/or transcendentally self-subsistent apart from the cosmos.

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

The very highest conceivable standard of divine attribution would be a transcendentally and eternally self-subsistent divinity of self-aware personhood, contingent on nothing but itself.

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Is it your position, ass clown, that (1) a divinity that is not self-aware and is contingent on the universe for its existence is of a higher metaphysical order of being than (2) a divinity that is self-aware and not contingent on anything whatsoever for its existence but its own being?

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Clearly, door number 2 is of a higher metaphysical order of being than BreezeWood's notion of the current state of divinity.

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Notwithstanding, precisely what do you know that none of the rest of us know, objectively speaking, apart from direct revelation from God, that would preclude BreezeWood's God, given the fact that BreezeWood's notion of divinity did in fact satisfy the highest conceivable standard of divine attribution logically possible according to the laws of organic thought before his divinity voluntarily surrendered its self-awareness and/or its transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos upon merging with the latter?

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Once again, Is (1) the current state of divinity according to BreezeWood of a higher metaphysical order of divinity than (2) one that retained its individual state of self-awareness and its transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos?

Clearly, door number 2 is of a higher metaphysical order of being, higher than BreezeWood's notion of the current state of divinity.

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

The clearly lower state of divinity is BreezeWood's notion, ass clown. Hence, ass clown, according to you, ass clown, you should be asking BreezeWood "where the hell do you get off proclaiming 'some lower standard' of divine attribution? When did GOD give you such authority?"

That's a good question, just where does BreezeWood get off with arbitrarily proclaiming 'some lower standard' of divine attribution than that asserted by the organic laws of logic?

I don't know why, ass clown, you're asking me that question, ass clown, given the fact that I see no good reason to hold that God surrendered His individual state of self-awareness, ass clown, or His transcendently independent primacy over the cosmos, ass clown. I simply do not pretend to know, like you, ass clown, via any objectively demonstrable means that God did not do that, ass clown.

Looks like your argument is with BreezeWood, ass clown.

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

On the other hand, ass clown, given the fact that you, ass clown, hold that God (1) did not confer His preexistent logic on the creation as the divinity Who is the very substance and the ground of the universal Principle of Identity, ass clown, or (2) could not be a part of the laws of thought and the physical laws of nature as a divinity merged with the cosmos, you arbitrarily preclude, ass clown, without any demonstrably rational or empirical justifiable reason, all the world's monotheistic traditions and/or pantheistic/panentheistic traditions, you self-aggrandizing, megalomaniacal ass clown.

Say, BreezeWood, looks like your argument is with ass clown, just like I told you all along.

Thank for once again, ass clown, confirming the fact that BreezeWood's real argument is with you, ass clown, not with me.

So you two ass clown relativists can just leave me out of your ass clown argument, okay, ass clowns, as unlike you ass clowns I do not pretend to know from the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin anything more or less than what they hold, like you relativist ass clowns.

 

[orogenicman]

Word salad.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Word salad.

Oh, hey, orogenicman, you sort of disappeared after that drubbing you took over abiogenesis. Took some time to recover, eh?

 

[orogenicman]

Word salad.

Oh, hey, orogenicman, you sort of disappeared after that drubbing you took over abiogenesis. Took some time to recover, eh?

Take a pill. You are having delusions again.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Take a pill. You are having delusions again.

Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research. Remember this, delusional one: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you. That was a hoot!

In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[orogenicman]

Take a pill. You are having delusions again.

Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research. Remember this, delusional one: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you. That was a hoot!

In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are babbling again. Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.

 

[Boss]

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.

So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.

 

[G.T.]

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.

So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.

I think you said this right.

As far as Emily, yea, not even just on this thread but the entire board like ya said. She's a peach. MD never apologized to her for lashing out at her and calling her names, but she stayed cordial with him regardless, like a boss, no pun.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Take a pill. You are having delusions again.

Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research. Remember this, delusional one: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you. That was a hoot!

In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are babbling again. Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.

You might as well be Baby Jane Hollie. . . .

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the meantime, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Take a pill. You are having delusions again.

Uh-huh, like you weren't disabused of your abiogenetic delusions by me via the realities of prebiotic research. Remember this, delusional one: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

Tells us again that science has shown how all the prebiotic materials of life were produced by nature and how it all came together again, how the hypothesis of abiogenesis magically turned into a scientific theory overnight and out of the blue, mysterious rumors that no learned person has ever heard tell of but you. That was a hoot!

In the meantime, here's another dose of reality for ya: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 64 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You are babbling again. Either take your pills or set the bottle down, bubba.

My favorite snapshot of Baby Jane Hollie, caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

HELLO. IS THERE ANYBODY HOME?

Yep, ass clown... there's somebody home here, that's why you're having such fits. We can't all be dumbed-down morons like Justin. For the record, and Breeze knows this, I have already previously accepted his view on universal spiritual awareness. It is very much possible that all life is spiritually aware and we perhaps aren't aware of that, or it doesn't translate to us consciously. Perhaps our spiritual awareness, coupled with 'original sin' and our higher cognition simply results in our need to express our awareness through things like worship and religion, where other living things are not so compelled? I don't know, I can't make that determination, and Breeze could be absolutely right.

So we don't have a disagreement. The person in this thread who everyone is disagreeing with is YOU, ass clown. We're now over 500 pages, mostly of your long-winded opinions and tripe, and you only have one follower, one poster who is thanking your posts or lending you any support whatsoever. It's the same poter you basically started with. You're not making a very good case, ass clown. I get the sense that even Emily is growing weary of trying to converse with you, and she is probably the most tolerant and diplomatic poster on the board.

I think you said this right.

As far as Emily, yea, not even just on this thread but the entire board like ya said. She's a peach. MD never apologized to her for lashing out at her and calling her names, but she stayed cordial with him regardless, like a boss, no pun.

GT: Baby Jane Hollie in Drag