Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.

You're busted and you know it.
My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
An occasional shower might help your fungus.

 

[Newby]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.

Ain't that the truth!!

 

[thebrucebeat]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.

Ain't that the truth!!

And you aren't bright enough to know your buddy just crashed and burned.

 

[Boss]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.

You're busted and you know it.
My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
An occasional shower might help your fungus.

Uh oh... Busted by Brucey the Babbling Buffoon! (This should be good!)

You are the one who appears not too bright... try to comprehend little Brucey... I believe in spiritual nature. I believe in animals. Where are you getting that I have no belief in them? If I did not believe that one of the two (or both) did not exist, it would be impossible for me to evaluate any evidence pertaining to them. Since I do believe in the existence of both, I can evaluate such evidence and have.

Now, if you are imagining water balloons splatting on the pavement from 3 stories, I would avoid any tall buildings until you repent to God. You may want to keep any small children, pets or other family members away as well. Sounds like your punishment may get ugly.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Brucey, you also know spiritual nature exists and you best be getting right with your God before it's too late. He's probably not very amused with your behavior here. Just sayin'.

I believe in spiritual nature and I believe in animals, so there is nothing that prevents me from examining evidence objectively (spiritual or physical) to evaluate what I believe. This is not the case for someone who doesn't accept or believe in spiritual nature. I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Don't know what the deal is with all the Jericho refs, maybe that works on fearful Christian types? Like I said, you best be gettin' right with Da Man before he zaps your miserable ass with a lightning bolt. Stop tormenting his followers with your satanic tactics of trying to use their faith against them before he unleashes a thousand plagues on you and yours.

As for me, you're not phasing me a bit with your shit. I'm far more concerned with the fungus under my toenail than I am with you. The more you yap, the stupider you get here.

You're busted and you know it.
My "shit", as you so elegantly put it, is using your logic to show you are a blowhard and not too bright.
You don't believe that animals have a spirit nature but you would consider the evidence.
You could consider the evidence for something you have no belief in, exactly what you say is completely impossible for everyone else you address.
I have this image of a water ballon dropped from three stories high and hitting the pavement.
It's your argument, completely blowing apart.
An occasional shower might help your fungus.

Uh oh... Busted by Brucey the Babbling Buffoon! (This should be good!)

You are the one who appears not too bright... try to comprehend little Brucey... I believe in spiritual nature. I believe in animals. Where are you getting that I have no belief in them? If I did not believe that one of the two (or both) did not exist, it would be impossible for me to evaluate any evidence pertaining to them. Since I do believe in the existence of both, I can evaluate such evidence and have.

Now, if you are imagining water balloons splatting on the pavement from 3 stories, I would avoid any tall buildings until you repent to God. You may want to keep any small children, pets or other family members away as well. Sounds like your punishment may get ugly.

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.
You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.
Your argument has been demolished.
Move on. Your credibility is gone.
You will be left with the intellectual powerhouses like your muscle-bound Newby for company.

 

[Boss]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.

Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.

Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.
The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
Got it.
You have circled down the drain.

 

[thanatos144]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.

Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.
The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
Got it.
You have circled down the drain.

even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I believe it's possible, and I said so.



Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.
The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
Got it.
You have circled down the drain.

even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.

I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.

 

[Montrovant]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

To take a page from your book, you are lying. You don't believe spiritual nature in animals is possible, you are just saying that to appear credible and objective.

 

[BreezeWood]

I doubt Moonbat thinks animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.

Why do the God-haters persist?

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious ...

Boss: I don't belong to a religion, why would I question anything based on religion?

... animals worship the God he doesn't believe in.


saying animals "worship" God is an extract of religion practiced by certain elements of humanity, Newby whom you have aligned yourself with in associate replies during this thread as the basis of your OP that the non Religious "hate" God.

I don't belong to a religion

in fact your responses are based on religion and rather than having your beliefs questioned you deflect by accusing those who question your religion of inaccurately hating God when in fact they are simply questioning your religion. -

just to clarify the OP, the non Religious do not "hate" God - if they "hate" it is your religion.


Wildlife does not Worship God, nor do I. ... it is a waste of time.

.

 

[Boss]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

You said you would consider the evidence for that.
You CAN now consider evidence for that which you don't believe.

Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.

Right... I believe in animals... they exist. I believe in spiritual nature... it exists. Therefore, I can entertain evidence for something pertaining to them. Where am I losing you?

The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.

No no no... I did not say this. I admitted the idea was interesting and possible. I don't personally believe animals are spiritually connected like humans. They may be, I just don't find the evidence supports that idea.

So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.

No, my 'rule' still applies because it's basic logic. I had to first believe in the existence of animals and spiritual nature to evaluate the evidence pertaining to them. If I didn't believe spiritual nature existed or didn't believe animals existed, I couldn't have reached my conclusions objectively.

What is happening here is you and Moonbat have purposely taken my 'rule' out of context. I've corrected you on this ...oh, bout a dozen times now... but you still stubbornly keep insisting I have made some silly irrational argument that I never made. I don't know why you keep doing that... bad meth? shortage of brain cells? profound retardation? Who the fuck knows?

 

[thanatos144]

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.
The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.
Got it.
You have circled down the drain.

even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.

I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.

I dont need to defend God. Oh and the ACLU doesn't fight for my rights they fight to dismantle them .... It was created by a communist.

 

[Boss]

Animals do not Worship God, nor do I. ... it is a waste of time.

Good for you! ...I disagree.

 

[thebrucebeat]

even though you hate him dont worry because God loves you.

I admire your humility in realizing you can't address the issue being discussed.
Liberals defend your rights at every turn. The ACLU has repeatedly defended schoolchildren that wish to carry and read their bibles and pray in school. You are being fed a lie that you need to believe to feed your need to be persecuted. You are being used.

I dont need to defend God. Oh and the ACLU doesn't fight for my rights they fight to dismantle them .... It was created by a communist.

You don't know what they have done for you.
You are a pawn in someone else's game.

 

[Boss]

What you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.
That is the something you don't believe.

I believe it's possible, and I said so.

To take a page from your book, you are lying. You don't believe spiritual nature in animals is possible, you are just saying that to appear credible and objective.

Whatever floats that boat, Moonbat. I can't rationalize with someone who's being irrational. I find Breeze's argument compelling and I confessed he may be making a valid point. I don't dismiss the possibility of animals practicing spirituality. I don't personally believe they do, but I could be wrong. Now I don't really care if you believe me or think I am lying, you're free to form your own assessments in that regard, nothing I can do about that.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I believe it's possible, and I said so.



Now you're doing like Moonbat and taking what I said out of context. I can consider evidence because I believe in animals and I believe in spiritual nature. If I did not believe one of them actually existed, I couldn't evaluate any evidence, it wouldn't logically be possible. But since I do believe that both exist, I can evaluate the evidence and form an opinion from it.

Fail.
You have repeatedly said you can't entertain evidence for something you don't believe in.
Over and over and over.

Right... I believe in animals... they exist. I believe in spiritual nature... it exists. Therefore, I can entertain evidence for something pertaining to them. Where am I losing you?

The something you don't believe in is the spiritual nature of animals.

No no no... I did not say this. I admitted the idea was interesting and possible. I don't personally believe animals are spiritually connected like humans. They may be, I just don't find the evidence supports that idea.

So now your rule only applies to the things your challengers don't believe in, but it doesn't apply to the things you don't believe in.

No, my 'rule' still applies because it's basic logic. I had to first believe in the existence of animals and spiritual nature to evaluate the evidence pertaining to them. If I didn't believe spiritual nature existed or didn't believe animals existed, I couldn't have reached my conclusions objectively.

What is happening here is you and Moonbat have purposely taken my 'rule' out of context. I've corrected you on this ...oh, bout a dozen times now... but you still stubbornly keep insisting I have made some silly irrational argument that I never made. I don't know why you keep doing that... bad meth? shortage of brain cells? profound retardation? Who the fuck knows?

Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
You will be known by the company you keep.

 

[Boss]

Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
You will be known by the company you keep.

But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature.

If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
You will be known by the company you keep.

But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature.

If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!

So if someone discovers something new, something you never heard of or imagined, because you don't believe it exists, you cannot evaluate any evidence of it?

If someone claims something exists but you don't believe them, you can never evaluate any new evidence that comes to light?

Once a person holds a belief in something existing or not, that belief is permanent because no new evidence can ever convince them?

Those are examples of what your reasoning on this subject leads to. And of course, there's always the wonderful idea that evidence is not what causes a person to believe a thing exists, rather they believe in a thing and then they see if there is any evidence for it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Maybe the dummies that support you will ignore that what you have really done is changed your rules because they blew up in your face.
You will be known by the company you keep.

But I didn't change anything, you did. The context of what I said was changed into an argument I never made. I clarified this immediately, and have been clarifying it ever since, but you and Moonbat continue to insist that I've made some irrational nonsensical argument that I never made. Now you're claiming I have changed something... Nope, argument is still the same. I have to believe animals exist, I have to believe spiritual nature exists, then I can evaluate whether animals experience spiritual nature.

If you still don't get it, I understand... you're pretty stupid. But I've spent enough time explaining it to you in specific detail, and I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. Shouldn't need to do that, you're able to read and if you haven't comprehended it by now, you're not going to. So be it!

Do you really want me to quote your post where you say specifically that you have to believe something to accept evidence for it? In context of course, the entire post without editing it?
Let me know if you want that displayed here to clarify your dishonesty. I will be happy to oblige you.