XPost: alt.abortion, alt.society.liberalism, alt.activism.death-penalty
XPost: alt.atheism
From: randolf@canadianatheists.ca
On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:15:57 +1100
Michael Christ wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 9:24 am, Randolf Richardson 張文道 wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 09:59:45 +1100
> > Michael Christ wrote:
> >> On 5/03/2024 6:24 am, Randolf Richardson 張文道 wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 08:08:30 -0600
> >>> Gregory Greenman wrote:
> >>>> On 3/3/2024 12:37 AM, Michael Christ wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/03/2024 5:20 pm, Gregory Greenman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/2/2024 6:05 PM, Michael Christ wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Think about it. He has to believe that the ===>>> testimony <<<=== of
> >>>>>>> the talking donkey is true in the bible in order to refute it. Get
it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, not at all. We know that donkeys don't talk, so that story is
> >>>>>> obviously untrue. That's the point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read what I wrote again without snipping it to what you would like.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, I've done that. What you said is still wrong. Just like the bible.
> >>>
> >>> ...and just like how we know that talking donkeys
> >>> aren't real, we also know talking snakes aren't
> >>> real. In fact, it's even more preposterous to
> >>> claim that snakes can talk since they don't even
> >>> have vocal folds or a voice box.
> >>>
> >>> (I like the point you made about the donkeys not
> >>> being able to talk.)
> >>
> >> Try this Blondie: I said "donkey" or "snake," singular. If you can't
> >> even get that right what hope is there for you?
> >
> > Even I, a natural blonde, knows that the plural
> > forms of the words "snake" and "donkey" refers to
> > all snakes and donkeys in the sense of them being
> > species in a general way.
>
> We are talking bible, aint we?
>
> One snake, one donkey, and you are both.
>
> The point is, genius, you atheists always, always, exaggerate to give
> the impression you are right. You have to do that.
No. That's your ill-informed impression of atheists,
but the reality is that you lot exaggerate to give
the impression that your god is always right, and you
probably feel that you have to do that.
> I said a talking donkey, singular, not your wankfest multiple donkey and
> you know it.
Do you know of any snakes or donkeys that can talk?
There's no evidence even for one of either of these
non-human animals.
You seem to be getting all worked up over a general
statement about snakes and donkeys not being able
to talk.
> Why do you do that? It was explained. You have to do that because you
> are idiot straw morons busy in your straw.
What does straw have to do with any of this? And I
don't know very many atheists who handle straw on a
daily basis.
> Back to the point,
Finally!
> you have to believe the ===>>> testimony <<<=== of
> the bible in order to refute it (e.g., talking donkey). Get it?
I don't have to believe anything, and a belief in
something is not a prerequisite for refuting it.
> No, you don't, because you are friggin' idiots.
I know you don't believe most people here are
idiots; otherwise, what is the point of conversing
with people who you think are idiots? Do you not
have self-respect for your own time management, or
are you some lazy out-of-work loser sitting on the
couch at home every day while watching soap operas
and eating bon-bons because beer is too expensive?
--
Randolf Richardson 張文道 - randolf@canadianatheists.ca
Canadian atheists - True, Northern, Strong, and Free
Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
https://www.canadianatheists.ca/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
