Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare

Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare23-03-2024 04:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	Hey, gfm7175, I guess I should thank you for not having thrown this in my face: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare I do find it a little disappointing that atheists are HATED to the point that a lecture on fractals garners a selling point by marketing it as an idea that atheists HATE. Regardless, I can honestly say that I've never heard this version/take on intelligent design before, i.e. that only an infinitely thinking creator could create the concept of fractals and have them appear in nature. The lecture isn't intended for those who understand fractals because Dr. Jason Lisle relies on ice, ferns, broccoli, coastlines, mountains, clouds, lightning, and other things being understood as natural phenomena that are fractals (at the 30 minute mark) ... but they aren't fractals. I would recommend that he just cut that minute-and-a-half out of the lecture, except he needs that to show that God interwove fractals and His infinite thinking into creation. Otherwise, I would love to entertain the idea that God is the "why" that math and science can't explain ... about numbers at least. Now that I've seen the video, how am I going to be able to sleep tonight? Edited on 23-03-2024 04:37
23-03-2024 15:21
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: Hey, gfm7175, I guess I should thank you for not having thrown this in my face: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare I do find it a little disappointing that atheists are HATED to the point that a lecture on fractals garners a selling point by marketing it as an idea that atheists HATE. Regardless, I can honestly say that I've never heard this version/take on intelligent design before, i.e. that only an infinitely thinking creator could create the concept of fractals and have them appear in nature. The lecture isn't intended for those who understand fractals because Dr. Jason Lisle relies on ice, ferns, broccoli, coastlines, mountains, clouds, lightning, and other things being understood as natural phenomena that are fractals (at the 30 minute mark) ... but they aren't fractals. I would recommend that he just cut that minute-and-a-half out of the lecture, except he needs that to show that God interwove fractals and His infinite thinking into creation. Otherwise, I would love to entertain the idea that God is the "why" that math and science can't explain ... about numbers at least. Now that I've seen the video, how am I going to be able to sleep tonight? The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Okay, I accept that. Where did the energy the universe has come from? Why scientists do not make science about God but about the science.
24-03-2024 00:45
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Hey, gfm7175, I guess I should thank you for not having thrown this in my face: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare I do find it a little disappointing that atheists are HATED to the point that a lecture on fractals garners a selling point by marketing it as an idea that atheists HATE. Regardless, I can honestly say that I've never heard this version/take on intelligent design before, i.e. that only an infinitely thinking creator could create the concept of fractals and have them appear in nature. The lecture isn't intended for those who understand fractals because Dr. Jason Lisle relies on ice, ferns, broccoli, coastlines, mountains, clouds, lightning, and other things being understood as natural phenomena that are fractals (at the 30 minute mark) ... but they aren't fractals. I would recommend that he just cut that minute-and-a-half out of the lecture, except he needs that to show that God interwove fractals and His infinite thinking into creation. Otherwise, I would love to entertain the idea that God is the "why" that math and science can't explain ... about numbers at least. Now that I've seen the video, how am I going to be able to sleep tonight? Hey IBdaMann... The Mandlebrot Set is OBVIOUSLY your ****in' nightmare ... now your nightmare comes to life...
24-03-2024 02:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	gfm7175 wrote: Hey IBdaMann... The Mandlebrot Set is OBVIOUSLY your ****in' nightmare ... now your nightmare comes to life... You bring up an interesting point. Could it be argued that the existence of heavy metal in creation points to a creator who is a metal-head? Do you think He'll play at the Troubadour, or does his omnipresence satisfy that requirement?
24-03-2024 03:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	I have another question for you. Does gfm7175 believe in Rapture? Watch this video. I like this guy. Not because of anything he has to say, but because he isn't bashing on atheists to make his point. @ time 1:42 - "Revelation is like the Portland, Oregon of the Bible; it's where you find all the weird stuff." @ time 7:45 - "Paul says that when Jesus returns as the true king, a trumpet will blast, ..." Could he have meant that an electric guitar will scream? ... perhaps a Korg synthesizer?
24-03-2024 06:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	Then there's this guy. He hurls the "atheist" and "evolutionist" slur quite liberally, and his arguments rest on misrepresenting atheists' and Darwinists' positions ... but I'll still take this guy's side against the warmizombies and Cypresses and others purporting to hold speculative positions that are established settled science. So this guy is going to change my mind on the ark. I didn't know I had a position. If he's going to try to tell me that there was more than one window on the ark, or that it was a size other than one cubit by one cubit, I'm going to call booooolsch't. I'll let you know what I find. Edited on 24-03-2024 06:16
24-03-2024 07:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	IBdaMann wrote: Then there's this guy. He hurls the "atheist" and "evolutionist" slur quite liberally, and his arguments rest on misrepresenting atheists' and Darwinists' positions ... but I'll still take this guy's side against the warmizombies and Cypresses and others purporting to hold speculative positions that are established settled science. So this guy is going to change my mind on the ark. I didn't know I had a position. If he's going to try to tell me that there was more than one window on the ark, or that it was a size other than one cubit by one cubit, I'm going to call booooolsch't. I'll let you know what I find. @ time 1:10 - "For Bible-believing Christians, the Bible is the true history book of the universe." Maybe this is how we know the temperature of Venus? What happened on Mars, exactly? @ time 5:40 - "Noah could have had between 55 to 75 years to build the ark." Nope. I'm calling boooooolsch't. Noah was given seven days. S-E-V-E-N days to get his stuff done, get his act together, get his ark built, get everybody on board, and get floatable. Genesis 7:4"[God speaking] For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:5 "And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him." Genesis 7:10 "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth." @ time 8:23 - "Today, the human intellect and physique has suffered from 6,000 years of sin and decay." I wish someone would have recorded the world records from that far back since that was the best humanity has ever been. @ time 12:29 - [The explanation begins of dinosaurs on the ark, and that the flood was responsible for fossilizing the dinosaurs that were not on the ark] I didn't know this. He doesn't explain how the T-rexes and the Spinosauruses were fed, but I'm sure it was cruelty-free. @ time 16:57 - "There is still some residual mountain-building and continental-shift occurring today as a result [of the flood]!" I did not know that the flood caused geological activity. It's better to find out late than never, I always say.
24-03-2024 08:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	James_ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Hey, gfm7175, I guess I should thank you for not having thrown this in my face: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare I do find it a little disappointing that atheists are HATED to the point that a lecture on fractals garners a selling point by marketing it as an idea that atheists HATE. Regardless, I can honestly say that I've never heard this version/take on intelligent design before, i.e. that only an infinitely thinking creator could create the concept of fractals and have them appear in nature. The lecture isn't intended for those who understand fractals because Dr. Jason Lisle relies on ice, ferns, broccoli, coastlines, mountains, clouds, lightning, and other things being understood as natural phenomena that are fractals (at the 30 minute mark) ... but they aren't fractals. I would recommend that he just cut that minute-and-a-half out of the lecture, except he needs that to show that God interwove fractals and His infinite thinking into creation. Otherwise, I would love to entertain the idea that God is the "why" that math and science can't explain ... about numbers at least. Now that I've seen the video, how am I going to be able to sleep tonight? The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Okay, I accept that. Where did the energy the universe has come from? Why scientists do not make science about God but about the science. The universe is not energy. Science does not have any nonfalsifiable theories. It is completely atheistic. It does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there. You cannot prove God with science. You cannot prove there is no god or gods with science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-03-2024 08:07
24-03-2024 19:00
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Hey IBdaMann... The Mandlebrot Set is OBVIOUSLY your ****in' nightmare ... now your nightmare comes to life... You bring up an interesting point. Could it be argued that the existence of heavy metal in creation points to a creator who is a metal-head? Do you think He'll play at the Troubadour, or does his omnipresence satisfy that requirement? Now THAT'S one heck of a graphic! Coming soon to an afterlife near you. Edited on 24-03-2024 19:01
24-03-2024 20:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: I have another question for you. Does gfm7175 believe in Rapture? Watch this video. I like this guy. Not because of anything he has to say, but because he isn't bashing on atheists to make his point. @ time 1:42 - "Revelation is like the Portland, Oregon of the Bible; it's where you find all the weird stuff." @ time 7:45 - "Paul says that when Jesus returns as the true king, a trumpet will blast, ..." Could he have meant that an electric guitar will scream? ... perhaps a Korg synthesizer? That's a question that I've had an internal struggle with for many years. Some Christians say yes and other Christians say no, and even amongst the ones who say yes, they often disagree as to when it will happen. The short answer to this question of yours is that, in this very moment, yes I do believe in the rapture. For me to better elaborate upon that question, I will first have to provide some additional info, and I'll provide a random timeline that I found so that I can make a visual reference. This is a graphic detailing a few of the major "end times events", complete with a "you are here" marker. How convenient! Anyway, this graphic is a viewpoint coming from the perspective of someone who believes in a pre-tribulation rapture of The Church (Christ's Bride) and someone who also believes in a more literal reading of Revelation rather than a more symbolic reading. Now, the "more literal" position that I'm mentioning here doesn't mean that one denies the existence of a plethora of symbolisms used within the book, nor does it assert that those symbolisms should all be understood in a very literal sense (e.g. that "dragons" are actually dragons, or that "ten heads" are actually "ten literal heads"), but rather what I mean by it is that certain specific events that are mentioned in Revelation (such as the Millennium) are expected to be literally fulfilled in a manner likewise to how prophecy during the days of Jesus' "first coming" was literally fulfilled (e.g. Christ literally came to Earth via being born of a virgin woman, literally died on the cross, literally rose from the dead, literally ascended into Heaven to "prepare a place for you", etc)... Likewise, "the Millennium" is a specific event that will literally be fulfilled. Anyway, with all of that being explained a bit, the general belief here is that "the rapture" is a specific event that marks the very beginning of a specific sequence of events that can be dubbed as "the second coming". This sequence of events begins with "the rapture" and continues through "the return of Christ", as shown in the graphic. Keep in mind that there are also plenty of other Christians (probably a majority of them) who instead view "the second coming" as a singular event, an event that is marked as "the return of Christ" on this graphic (and those people do not believe in "the rapture", and might even view it as heretical or non-biblical). Under such a view, the Christian Church (Bride of Christ) WILL go through "the great tribulation" in the very same manner as everyone else. Where I struggle with that view is reading Revelation 3:10 in which Jesus promises those who have "kept the word of my patience" that "[they will be kept from] the hour of temptation". That seems to suggest to me that such people who fall under that category will be raptured during the "first phase" of "the second coming" (which happens before the tribulation) and before "Christ's triumphant return". Here's another couple images. This depicts how an Old Testament believer saw "the coming of the Messiah"... He saw it as a singular mountain instead of two mountains with a valley inbetween. IOW, he's seeing the end and not the finer details that come before the end... He's seeing "the coming of the Messiah", but there was actually a 'first coming', a 'Church Age' valley (which is the present moment), and then finally a 'second coming'. Likewise to the Old Testament believer, the New Testament believer of today more easily sees "the second coming of the Messiah" as a singular event, but within that "second coming of the Messiah" event is actually first 'the rapture', then a 'tribulation' valley, and then finally 'Christ's return to Earth', which is the part of this sequence of events that is visible/known to the New Testament believer. So, much like how the OT believer didn't get the exact "coming of Jesus" that he expected (as there was actually a "smaller" first one with some time between it and then finally the "bigger" second one), the NT believer seems to likewise not be getting the exact "second coming" of Jesus that he expects (as there seems to actually be a "smaller" first one ('the rapture') with some time between it ('the tribulation') and then finally the "bigger" second one ('Christ's triumphant return to Earth'). This graphic is another viewpoint that seems to be playing out. "Messiah" (Jesus' life on Earth) is believed to have occurred right around the years 4BC-33AD, so right inbetween "Day 4" and "Day 5". Present day is about 2,000 years after Christ's death, which is right towards the very end of "Day 6", just before the "Day 7" "day of rest". BTW, this graphic is very reminiscent of the creation account described in the Book of Genesis (six days of work, one day of rest). It's interesting stuff, to say the least. Of course, there's disagreement even amongst Christians about much of this stuff, and this stuff all ultimately stems back to the foundational belief that Jesus Christ exists and truly IS "the Son of God". If he doesn't exist, then none of this additional stuff matters. Even if he does exist, then there can and obviously will be disagreement amongst the finer details such as these. So, in a long-winded way, I'm saying that yes I do believe in "the rapture", and yes I do believe that it is "imminent". I believe "the rapture" to be the "first phase" of Christ's second coming to Earth, followed by the tribulation, followed by the millennium, followed by the final judgement, followed by eternity. There's other events too, but the gist can be expressed via a few key elements. I could also, if one is interested, do a deeper dive into precisely why I currently believe that "the rapture" is a legitimate part of "the second coming" (this deeper dive would get into how ancient Jewish weddings were performed, for instance, as well as comparisons between the seemingly contradictory biblical text depicting Christ's second coming), but that's another whole lengthy post or two of its own. Edited on 24-03-2024 21:21
25-03-2024 17:04
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	gfm7175 wrote: That's a question that I've had an internal struggle with for many years. Some Christians say yes and other Christians say no, and even amongst the ones who say yes, they often disagree as to when it will happen. John 3:16; For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whoever believeth shall not perish but have everlasting life. p.s., As you know, I like science. It can pretty much explain everything. Edited on 25-03-2024 17:07
29-03-2024 02:01
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	IBdaMann wrote: I like this guy. Not because of anything he has to say, but because he isn't bashing on atheists to make his point. The overwhelming "bashing" is done by atheists bashing Christians. "Mock them (Christians)! Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins encouraging a screaming throng of his cult of atheists at a hate-fest in the U.S. His book, "The God Delusion," is so bitter, so ignorant that one of his Oxford colleagues said "It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." Bashing includes the pejoratives "flat-earthers, fundies, stupid, ignorant, anti-science, and irrational" to name but a few who "believe in the magic sky fairy". http://Irrational-Atheism.blogspot.com Author of Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life, described by medical doctor as "beyond incredible"
29-03-2024 06:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	RenaissanceMan wrote: The overwhelming "bashing" is done by atheists bashing Christians. Incorrect. Many Christians unfortunately repeat this line but I don't see actual atheists bashing anyone. All (100%) of the Christian-bashing is performed by theists of some Marxist denomination, only claiming to be atheist. Sadly, too many Christians take their claims on face value. RenaissanceMan wrote: "Mock them (Christians)! Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins encouraging a screaming throng of his cult of atheists at a hate-fest in the U.S. His book, "The God Delusion," is so bitter, so ignorant that one of his Oxford colleagues said "It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist." May I point out that Richard Dawkins adds up to only one man, and he is playing to an audience of major losers who pays him $millions just to provide them plausible basis for believing they are thientific thuper-geniutheth. RenaissanceMan wrote: Bashing includes the pejoratives "flat-earthers, fundies, stupid, ignorant, anti-science, and irrational" to name but a few who "believe in the magic sky fairy". This is exactly how you know they are Marxist losers. These are exactly the same slurs that are hurled at those who don't believe in the Global Warming / Climate Change religion, or who seek to make America great, or who defend the Constitution, or who oppose the DNC in any way to any extent.
29-03-2024 15:14
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	IBdaMann wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: The overwhelming "bashing" is done by atheists bashing Christians. Incorrect. Many Christians unfortunately repeat this line but I don't see actual atheists bashing anyone. You're all over the place, contradicting yourself. That and you obviously have not read anything by hateful, arrogant atheists who are consistently hateful and vugar. Author of Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life, described by medical doctor as "beyond incredible"
29-03-2024 15:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	RenaissanceMan wrote:You're all over the place, contradicting yourself. That and you obviously have not read anything by hateful, arrogant atheists who are consistently hateful and vugar. Forgive me for pointing this out, but you are naive and gullible. Show me one beligerent Christian-hater who claims to be an atheist and who does not ardently believe in Global Warming. Really, show me one. When you can't, I'll expect an apology. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-03-2024 19:21
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	IBdaMann wrote: Forgive me for pointing this out, but you are naive and gullible. Show me one beligerent (sic) Christian-hater who claims to be an atheist and who does not ardently believe in Global Warming (sic) . Really, show me one. When you can't, I'll expect an apology. "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli I cited Richard Dawkins without any mention of his position on "Global Warming" (sic). Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him. And learn how to spell "belligerent." It makes you look even more ignorant, gullible and naive. ciao brutto Author of Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life, described by medical doctor as "beyond incredible"
29-03-2024 20:04
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	RenaissanceMan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Forgive me for pointing this out, but you are naive and gullible. Show me one beligerent (sic) Christian-hater who claims to be an atheist and who does not ardently believe in Global Warming (sic) . Really, show me one. When you can't, I'll expect an apology. I cited Richard Dawkins without any mention of his position on "Global Warming" (sic). Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him. And learn how to spell "belligerent." It makes you look even more ignorant, gullible and naive. ciao brutto "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli Pauli's Exclusion Principle states that no two electrons in the same atom can have identical values for all four of their quantum numbers. In other words, (1) no more than two electrons can occupy the same orbital and (2) two electrons in the same orbital must have opposite spins (Figure 46(i) and (ii)). https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/pauli-exclusion-principle So a positron and an electron will not have different quantum numbers than an electron and a positron occupying the same orbital plane? This is kind of where the difference between linear and angular momentum shows itself, right? I can see why Pauli would say that! p.s., Anyone else notice where they say particle and not electron and positron which have opposing spins/polarity? That is what brutto was talking about, right? And now we're discussing how atmospheric gasses can trap heat/conserve energy. This is an aspect of Global Warming. p.s.s., This is funny. It might be able to be shown that when a gas does not become ionized, that its mass increases. This gets a great deal into the Joule-Thomson throttling process and the Joule-Thomson coefficient. Then this might translate to heat in the Earth's atmosphere. Anyway, I think that's what brutto was referring to when he brought up Pauli. If not then my bad. Edited on 29-03-2024 20:11
29-03-2024 20:18
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Just an FYI, when KE = 3/2kT, the average velocity of a gas might be its angular momentum (spin) being converted into linear momentum when it collides with another molecule/element. And then as it's accelerating it's absorbing background electromagnetic radiation. And then its next collision it releases the radiation it absorbed, how heat (electromagnetic radiation) is trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. And I'd like to Thank ITN and IBDM for agreeing that heat is a flow of energy released by molecules/elements colliding. Those guys are such kidders when they say things like "There's no global warming" or "we don't have enough thermometers to measure", etc. That's like having Uncle Fester and Cousin It for relatives. p.s., O18 found in water in higher concentrations when it's hotter outside. That would suggest that water conserved solar radiation as increased mass/ionization. And that would suggest that there is a threshold or limit as to when a new electron occurs vs O16 just being more energetic/excited. The ionization would be because the O18 molecule is pursuing an equilibrium with its environment according to the laws of thermodynamics. I checked and O18 has 2 extra neutrons and no extra electrons. That is an example of conservation of energy as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics; The first law of thermodynamics is a formulation of the law of conservation of energy in the context of thermodynamic processes. The law distinguishes two principal forms of energy transfer, heat and thermodynamic work, that modify a thermodynamic system containing a constant amount of matter. Solar radiation is an outside source of energy while atmospheric gasses are matter. p.s.s., Umm, ITN, I have lived in the Valley of the Sun. It's south of Norway and west of the Gulf Stream. I actually read about that when I lived in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Attached image: Edited on 29-03-2024 20:44
30-03-2024 09:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	RenaissanceMan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Forgive me for pointing this out, but you are naive and gullible. Show me one beligerent (sic) Christian-hater who claims to be an atheist and who does not ardently believe in Global Warming (sic) .Really, show me one. When you can't, I'll expect an apology. I cited Richard Dawkins without any mention of his position on "Global Warming" (sic). Your one job was to provide an example of one Christian-hater who claims to be an atheist and who does not believe in Global Warming. You cited Richard Dawkins, who is a Global Warming fanatic. Christian-hating and Global Warming are Marxist partners. They may claim to be atheists, but they are deeply religious.
01-04-2024 09:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	RenaissanceMan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: The overwhelming "bashing" is done by atheists bashing Christians. Incorrect. Many Christians unfortunately repeat this line but I don't see actual atheists bashing anyone. You're all over the place, contradicting yourself. IBDaMann has not contradicted anything he said. RenaissanceMan wrote: That and you obviously have not read anything by hateful, arrogant atheists who are consistently hateful and vugar. Don't know any hateful arrogant atheists. Have you met any IBDaMann? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-04-2024 15:06
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	"Mock them! (Christians) Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins addressing a cheering crowd in the United States where his book of hate, 'The God Delusion,' sold millions of copies Atheist lies are all you have.
01-04-2024 16:33
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	RenaissanceMan wrote: "Mock them! (Christians) Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins addressing a cheering crowd in the United States where his book of hate, 'The God Delusion,' sold millions of copies Atheist lies are all you have. I think 4 wars this century to promote God's children as deserving of having the Garden of Eden shows what God and his children have to offer this world. Judes have missed the Garden of Eden ever since Adam and Eve had kids. And nothing has changed since. Ever get tired of hearing Christians "God blessed me with a baby"? And what did Jesus say? Mark 12: 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] There is no commandment greater than these." I kind of hate to ask this but what was it Jesus taught and what are his children doing? Why does saying "God" mean war? p.s., Does the Jude Zionist movement include what is believed to be the actual Garden of Eden? https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/unesco-iraq-marsh/491801/ Edited on 01-04-2024 16:39
01-04-2024 21:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	Into the Night wrote: Don't know any hateful arrogant atheists. Have you met any IBDaMann? I am often arrogant ... but that precludes any need to be hateful. About twenty-five years ago, I noticed that every single Christian-basher was a die-hard warmizombie who nonetheless claimed to be an atheist. I also discovered that if I observed long enough, said Christian-basher would 1) insist that there was no God and 2) pretended to be a champion of science. At that point, I awaited all the standard errors, e.g. Evolution is settled science, Big Bang is settled science, we KNOW the age of the earth is 4.7 billion years old, radiometric dating tells us the age, not the upper limit, greenhouse effect is settled science, etc. Believe me, I tried to reason with them. I tried to help them. Those shit-for-brains rat-**** bastards made me the warmizombie killer that I am today. I sense you wondering "How is IBDaMann able to immediately sniff these shits out before they even eke out their third sentence?" I know, I know. It's uncanny. I do know of other atheists who are actual atheists. They have no reason to hate Christians, and no personal religious faith to be threatened by Christian dogma, so they don't need to attack Christians as though they are of a competing religion. What saddens me, however, are Christians who naively take warmizombie claimed of atheism on face value, and end up allowing themselves to be beaten over the head by gibberbabble, and naively accept the claim that the gibberbabble is settled science, and the conclusion that Christians are just stupid science deniers ... ... and those Christians proceed forward HATING atheists and science. Look at PostmodernProphet. I have supported him on every issue but one, and he will only hurl the "atheist" slur at me like I somehow raped his sister. All of the actual atheists that I knew
01-04-2024 21:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	RenaissanceMan wrote: Atheist lies are all you have. So, do you give up? Are you conceding my point? Your one job was to identify a Christian-basher who claims to be an atheist ... who isn't a warmizombie. Thus far, you have identified Dawkins, the fanatical warmizombie, three times. I take it that you are surrendering.
02-04-2024 02:10
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	You are as persistent as any atheist or Leftist. You repeat yourself as much as any atheist or Leftist. It is as futile to try to reason with you as to reason with any atheist or Leftist. I may as well reason with a pigeon. Atheists are fanatically hateful, rude, and profane. You have seen it but you deny it. Your dishonesty is reprehensible.
02-04-2024 04:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14441)	RenaissanceMan wrote: You are as persistent as any atheist or Leftist. You repeat yourself as much as any atheist or Leftist. It is as futile to try to reason with you as to reason with any atheist or Leftist. I may as well reason with a pigeon. Atheists are fanatically hateful, rude, and profane. You have seen it but you deny it. Your dishonesty is reprehensible. You are gullible and naive. Your proficiency in logic is atrocious. You are irrational to the point of being impossible to forthwith reason. @ Into the Night, this is with what I get to deal on every site. I have no doubt that RenaissanceMan was targetted for abuse by Marxists claiming to be atheists, looking to leverage his gullibility to prey on him and to get him to blame/HATE someone who never bothered him in the first place.
04-04-2024 09:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	RenaissanceMan wrote: "Mock them! (Christians) Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins addressing a cheering crowd in the United States where his book of hate, 'The God Delusion,' sold millions of copies Atheist lies are all you have. Richard Dawkins is not an atheist. He is a fundamentalist believer in the Church of No God. What is an 'atheist lie'? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-04-2024 09:29
04-04-2024 09:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	James_ wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: "Mock them! (Christians) Ridicule them! With contempt!" - Richard Dawkins addressing a cheering crowd in the United States where his book of hate, 'The God Delusion,' sold millions of copies Atheist lies are all you have. I think 4 wars this century to promote God's children as deserving of having the Garden of Eden shows what God and his children have to offer this world. Judes have missed the Garden of Eden ever since Adam and Eve had kids. And nothing has changed since. Ever get tired of hearing Christians "God blessed me with a baby"? And what did Jesus say? Mark 12: 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] There is no commandment greater than these." I kind of hate to ask this but what was it Jesus taught and what are his children doing? Why does saying "God" mean war? p.s., Does the Jude Zionist movement include what is believed to be the actual Garden of Eden? https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/unesco-iraq-marsh/491801/ Your random shit is incoherent, James. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
04-04-2024 09:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Don't know any hateful arrogant atheists. Have you met any IBDaMann? I am often arrogant ... but that precludes any need to be hateful. About twenty-five years ago, I noticed that every single Christian-basher was a die-hard warmizombie who nonetheless claimed to be an atheist. I also discovered that if I observed long enough, said Christian-basher would 1) insist that there was no God and 2) pretended to be a champion of science. At that point, I awaited all the standard errors, e.g. Evolution is settled science, Big Bang is settled science, we KNOW the age of the earth is 4.7 billion years old, radiometric dating tells us the age, not the upper limit, greenhouse effect is settled science, etc. Believe me, I tried to reason with them. I tried to help them. Those shit-for-brains rat-** bastards made me the warmizombie killer that I am today. I sense you wondering "How is IBDaMann able to immediately sniff these shits out before they even eke out their third sentence?" I know, I know. It's uncanny. I do know of other atheists who are actual atheists. They have no reason to hate Christians, and no personal religious faith to be threatened by Christian dogma, so they don't need to attack Christians as though they are of a competing religion. What saddens me, however, are Christians who naively take warmizombie claimed of atheism on face value, and end up allowing themselves to be beaten over the head by gibberbabble, and naively accept the claim that the gibberbabble is settled science, and the conclusion that Christians are just stupid science deniers ... ... and those Christians proceed forward HATING atheists and science. Look at PostmodernProphet. I have supported him on every issue but one, and he will only hurl the "atheist" slur at me like I somehow raped his sister. I agree here. I have never known any atheist that hated Christians. The only folks that really hate Christians are some Muslims, some Jews, and of course believers in the Church of No God (and the Church of Global Warming). You know, the tyranny types. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan**
04-04-2024 09:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	RenaissanceMan wrote: You are as persistent as any atheist or Leftist. You repeat yourself as much as any atheist or Leftist. It is as futile to try to reason with you as to reason with any atheist or Leftist. I may as well reason with a pigeon. Atheists are fanatically hateful, rude, and profane. You have seen it but you deny it. Your dishonesty is reprehensible. You are describing the Church of No God, not atheists. You are also describing Democrats. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-04-2024 09:38
04-04-2024 09:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	IBdaMann wrote: RenaissanceMan wrote: You are as persistent as any atheist or Leftist. You repeat yourself as much as any atheist or Leftist. It is as futile to try to reason with you as to reason with any atheist or Leftist. I may as well reason with a pigeon. Atheists are fanatically hateful, rude, and profane. You have seen it but you deny it. Your dishonesty is reprehensible. You are gullible and naive. Your proficiency in logic is atrocious. You are irrational to the point of being impossible to forthwith reason. @ Into the Night, this is with what I get to deal on every site. I have no doubt that RenaissanceMan was targetted for abuse by Marxists claiming to be atheists, looking to leverage his gullibility to prey on him and to get him to blame/HATE someone who never bothered him in the first place. We BOTH get to deal with fundamentalist **s on every site. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan**
07-04-2024 21:59
RenaissanceMan ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	Your talk reflects your miserable life, filled with hatred and bitterness. I try to reason with people like you who relentlessly attack Christians, but you always end up the same. You're intellectually and morally superior and shout it out to the world. I try to help you learn, but you refuse to. ciao brutto Irrational-Atheism dot blogspot dot com
10-04-2024 08:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21619)	RenaissanceMan wrote: Your talk reflects your miserable life, filled with hatred and bitterness. I try to reason with people like you who relentlessly attack Christians, but you always end up the same. You're intellectually and morally superior and shout it out to the world. I try to help you learn, but you refuse to. ciao brutto Irrational-Atheism dot blogspot dot com Who are you talking to? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Hey gfm7175 - The Atheist's Worst Nightmare:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Refrigeration chemicals are a nightmare for the climate	3	14-10-2023 21:34
Climate Change - Vicious Feedbacks and Worst-Case Scenarios	219	07-06-2023 01:04
"Freakishly Warm" Arctic Weather Has Scientists Reconsidering Worst-Case Scenarios on Climate	11	04-06-2018 20:50