From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   Mike  posted:   
   > On 2026-01-02 12:48, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > > Mike  posted:   
   > >> On 2026-01-02 11:44, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > >>> Mike  posted:   
   > >>>> On 2026-01-02 09:57, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > >>>>> Mike  posted:   
   > >>>>>> On 2026-01-01 16:39, Steven Douglas wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> Mike  posted:   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> All I did was copy and pasted the content of your   
   > >>>>>>>> message into it and asked for an appropriate rebuttal.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> And it gave an inappropriate rebuttal by making   
   > >>>>>>> a false argument out of claims I never made. The   
   > >>>>>>> more you post that thing here, the more dumb it   
   > >>>>>>> shows itself to be.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> If anyone posted anything false it was obviously you.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Wrong. I posted evidence that IS evidence. That   
   > >>>>>>> dumb AI thing (that you think is so great) made   
   > >>>>>>> the false argument that I thought I was providing   
   > >>>>>>> proof or "definitive" evidence. I'm not sure why   
   > >>>>>>> you rely on something so dumb that it doesn't   
   > >>>>>>> understand the difference between proof (which   
   > >>>>>>> I specifically said I was NOT providing) and   
   > >>>>>>> evidence.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Everything is some form of evidence, but evidence   
   > >>>>>> of what though? Certainly not evidence of the   
   > >>>>>> existence of Jesus.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Do you understand the definition of the word   
   > >>>>> "evidence"? It's pretty clear that you don't.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> I would need something far   
   > >>>>>> more definitive what you provided.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> I provided evidence, even if you don't understand   
   > >>>>> what the word means. Just the fact that Jesus has   
   > >>>>> become known throughout the world (as He told us   
   > >>>>> would be the case in the End Times) is evidence   
   > >>>>> of His existence. What historical "myth" has ever   
   > >>>>> risen to the prominence that Jesus has?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Hitler!   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Hitler wasn't a myth. Try again.   
   > >>   
   > >> No, that is Jesus.   
   > >   
   > > So you can't think of a "myth" that has risen to   
   > > the level of prominence that Jesus has? I'm not   
   > > surprised, there is no such example. Jesus has   
   > > the prominence He has because He's NOT a myth.   
   > > Myths don't rise to that level of prominence,   
   > > no matter how hard you work on yourself, to try   
   > > to convince yourself that Jesus was a myth (when   
   > > there is no other example of such a "myth" that   
   > > you can name). Why do you think we're discussing   
   > > Jesus right now, and not some other "myth" that   
   > > you can't think of?   
   >   
   > I think differently.   
      
   That's the most truthful thing you've ever said on   
   this group. You and I have very little (if anything)   
   in common. It makes me wonder why you spend so much   
   time following me around on this group. But I'm glad   
   you do, because I love discussing the topic we are   
   currently discussing.   
   >   
   > The more people who believe   
   > a thing, the less likely it is to be true.   
      
   That's just not true. But if you think it is, give   
   an example in the wider world -- not just whatever   
   it is you say below.   
   >   
   > People   
   > are like your wife calls them ... sheep.   
      
   She meant that in a different context than the way   
   you mistakenly interpreted it.   
   >   
   > They like to follow the crowd.   
      
   Oh, so that's why our society has moved away from   
   Christianity? Yeah, that makes sense (not).   
   >   
   > Someone who picks there nose   
   > on YouTube is more likely to get five million views   
   > than the person giving instructions on how to build   
   > a bridge.   
      
   People who want to learn how to build a bridge are   
   not going to turn to YouTube for their instructions.   
   >   
   > >>>>> Why do you think so many ungodly people use the   
   > >>>>> name "Jesus" as a swear word?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> I don't use Jesus as a swear word.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Never?   
   > >>   
   > >> I don't recall ever having once using Jesus   
   > >> as a swear. I might say 'God' but even that   
   > >> would be rare.   
   > >   
   > > That's good. A lot of other people use Jesus   
   > > as a swear word. Every movie I've watched lately   
   > > has at least four or five mentions of Jesus, but   
   > > not in a good way.   
   >   
   > I don't really watch movies. If I ever had   
   > to swear at anyone, you would be first on   
   > my list.   
      
   That's how important you've made me. Thank you!   
   >   
   > >>>> I use 'Steven'.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Sure you do.   
   > >>   
   > >> I use Douglas too.   
   > >   
   > > Sure you do.   
   > >>   
   > >>>>> Why don't they use   
   > >>>>> the name "Buddha" as a swear word when they stub   
   > >>>>> their toe (for example)? Have you ever thought   
   > >>>>> about that?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> I've got more important things to think about.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Yet here you are, working hard to deny that Jesus   
   > >>> didn't exist. Why is this so important to you?   
   > >>   
   > >> I'm not denying that Jesus 'didn't exist'. I'm   
   > >> denying that he did exist.   
   > >   
   > > And working so hard at it, that you had to make   
   > > sure you corrected my error -- because that's how   
   > > important this is to you, and explains why you're   
   > > working so hard (to try to convince yourself).   
   >   
   > You seem to have a very low threshold for 'hard work'.   
   > My definition of hard work would be things that require   
   > far more effort.   
      
   Just the fact you're putting ANY effort into this is   
   an indication that you ARE working at it. And the   
   fact that you're sitting right there waiting for my   
   next post (so you can instantly respond) is another   
   example of the amount of effort you're putting into   
   this.   
   >   
   > >>>>>>>>>> I don't recall having 'argued' anything.   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> You posted the things arguments, which makes those   
   > >>>>>>>>> arguments yours since you're the one who posted   
   > >>>>>>>>> them. If you're not willing to stand by arguments   
   > >>>>>>>>> you post, maybe you shouldn't post them.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> Just because something is 'mine' in no way   
   > >>>>>>>> implies that I created it.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> If you post it here and stand by it, it's yours.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> That still doesn't mean that I wrote it, which I didn't.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> I didn't say you wrote it, I said you posted it.   
   > >>>>> And when you post something in public, you own it.   
   > >>>>> Do you think you could post something that is not   
   > >>>>> true about someone, and not be found culpable for   
   > >>>>> having posted it?   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>> I'm not really much a   
   > >>>>>>>>>> fan or expert of fiction and fantasy.   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> You sure work hard at denying what you don't believe.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> Copying and pasting isn't 'hard work'. I didn't   
   > >>>>>>>> even so much as burden myself with having to read   
   > >>>>>>>> them.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> So you also didn't see my rebuttal to its dumb   
   > >>>>>>> rebuttal. Why did you even bother to post it?   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Because it gives me pleasure to see you waste arguing   
   > >>>>>> with a 'thing'. You're basically arguing with something   
   > >>>>>> as inanimate as a rock.   
   > >>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)