Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

1) Why don't you take it up with Archbishop Welby ? It's all well and good spouting your bollocks on here, but 2) I bet you'ld never dare confront a 'believer', ( Christian, Muslim, or Jewish ), and try to convince them that following the Abrahamic tradition is misguided and based on falsehoods and deceit.

1) That isn't a realistic suggestion.

2) I have talked to JW's in the street standing by their bookstands about it. Of course we hit a brick wall and they couldn't provide anything other than a circular argument... 'The book is true because the book says it is true'.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) That isn't a realistic suggestion.

2) I have talked to JW's in the street about it. 

1) If you are convinced you are right, don't you have a moral duty to 'save' him and all of his congregation ?

2) JWs don't count, everybody else views them as fruitcakes. ( Half my wife's family are JWs ).

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

1) If you are convinced you are right, don't you have a moral duty to 'save' him and all of his congregation ?

2) JWs don't count, everybody else views them as fruitcakes. ( Half my wife's family are JWs ).

1) How do you realistically propose I talk to him? A moral duty based on what?

2) You claimed 'I bet you'd never dare confront a 'believer', I said I have with JWs in the street. That counts and it wins your bet.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[CB Fry]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

They are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. 

It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians.

The duck rape thread is going around in circles again! 😉😁

You've never said any of this stuff to a real human being in your life.

Not once. Just typing out horseshit on here, while enjoying Christmas Dinner, presents and Easter Eggs and everything else like the rest of it.

You're absolutely full of shit.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) How do you realistically propose I talk to him? A moral duty based on what?

2) You claimed 'I bet you'd never dare confront a 'believer', I said I have with JWs in the street. That counts and it wins your bet.

1) Send him a letter.

2) That's like a sixth form school bully picking on a snotty first year. You should try this lot

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

1) Send him a letter.

2) That's like a sixth form school bully picking on a snotty first year. You should try this lot

1) You think he'd reply? 🤔

2) JWs are just brainwashed, Westboro Baptist Church in that photo take it to a whole new level. Are you suggesting I should fly out to them and have a Louis Theroux chat with them?

 

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

You've never said any of this stuff to a real human being in your life.

Not once. Just typing out horseshit on here, while enjoying Christmas Dinner, presents and Easter Eggs and everything else like the rest of it.

You're absolutely full of shit.

1) You didn't counter any of the post.

Quote

Christmas and Easter are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. 

It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians.

2) I have had these discussions with JWs in the street. So you are wrong.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) You think he'd reply? 🤔

2) JWs are just brainwashed, Westboro Baptist Church in that photo take it to a whole new level. Are you suggesting I should fly out to them and have a Louis Theroux chat with them?

 

If you are so convinced that you are right, you should take on somebody that has obviously bought the conspiratorial lies hook line and sinker.

( Or are you just a wimp with a keyboard ? )

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If you are so convinced that you are right, you should take on somebody that has obviously bought the conspiratorial lies hook line and sinker.

You are yet again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I don't claim there is no God, I don't think any God claim has met it's burden of proof. There is a difference between those two positions and you and others in this thread fail to grasp this. That is not being convinced about being right, as I have not made a claim.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

You are yet again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I don't claim there is no God, I don't think any claim has met it's burden of proof. There is a difference between those two positions and you and others in this thread fail to see this.

And others do. The problem though, is that you're incapable of respecting an opposing opinion to your own and keeping quiet about it. 

A wise man once said that opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, as it requires us to suspend our egos and live in anothers world. 

Get over yourself. 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You are yet again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I don't claim there is no God, I don't think any claim has met it's burden of proof. There is a difference between those two positions and you and others in this thread fail to see this.

How the fuck do you expect PROOF of God to be revealed ? Millions upon millions hold the view that the Earth's existence is proof enough, what makes you so special that you expect a personalised memo ?

[CB Fry]

14 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I have had these discussions with JWs in the street. So you are wrong.

As someone has already said this is the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit. Anyone can tell a Jehovah's Witness where to go. Shooting fish in a barrel. 

Absolutely pitiful that's your only answer to my point. Pathetic, considering the crap you've put up in here.

I mean actual humans, actual people you speak to. Real people. Tell your Mum she supports genocide when she sends a Christmas card. Tell your nieces or nephews you won't give them an Easter Egg while you give them the peado speech. Have a big discussion over the Christmas Lunch with your siblings, your father.

Real people. You believe this shite, so tell them. Go and tell them, don't just type it out on here. Tell them to "counter your points". Tell them. Tell them. Ask them to provide proof. Ask them. Ask them.

You've never ever done that and you never ever will.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by CB Fry

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, egg said:

And others do. The problem though, is that you're incapable of respecting an opposing opinion to your own and keeping quiet about it. 

If they do then they don't understand what burden of proof means. Because it cannot be circular... i.e. the old book is true because the old book says it is true.

[whelk]

Has anyone done any analysis of how many posts by MLG in this thread are posted on a religious festival day?  Must be when he reflects more
 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

How the fuck do you expect PROOF of God to be revealed ? Millions upon millions hold the view that the Earth's existence is proof enough, what makes you so special that you expect a personalised memo ?

Many claim that God is 'all knowing', in which case he would be aware of what level of proof is required to satisfy every human on the planet. If he does exist, he has chosen not to provide the level of proof he knows it would take and instead opted for a system of an old book that was translated and mistranslated into multiple languages and allows for schisms to occur, that is a pretty inept way of communicating a message.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Has anyone done any analysis of how many posts by MLG in this thread are posted on a religious festival day?  Must be when he reflects more
 

I think you will find you bumped the thread this weekend, not me.

[whelk]

I don’t seem how MLG can define God not being kind when he has limited understanding of Her existence.  You only know what is ultimately kind when you have the full picture. Avoiding heartbreak on this planet is very limited criteria 

Edited 4 April, 2021 by whelk

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

I think you will find you bumped the thread this weekend, not me.

You would have bumped if I hadnt

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Many claim that God is 'all knowing', in which case he would be aware of what level of proof is required to satisfy every human on the planet. If he does exist, he has chosen not to provide the level of proof he knows it would take and instead opted for a system of an old book that was translated and mistranslated into multiple languages and allows for schisms to occur, that is a pretty inept way of communicating a message.

So, you can't, or won't, answer a simple question, instead you pass the buck onto an allegedly omnipresent being who may, or may not, exist. This is a simple question, aimed squarely at you; What proof would YOU accept ?

[whelk]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

So, you can't, or won't, answer a simple question, instead you pass the buck onto an allegedly omnipresent being who may, or may not, exist. This is a simple question, aimed squarely at you; What proof would YOU accept ?

A better designed eye?

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

I don’t seem how MLG can define God not being kind when he has limited understanding of Her existence.  You only know what is ultimately kind when you have the full picture. Avoiding heartbreak on this planet is a very limited criteria 

Of course God is kind, MLG han't been struck by a thunderbolt, ( nor drowned in a deluge ).

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

As someone has already said this is the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit. Anyone can tell a Jehovah's Witness where to go. Shooting fish in a barrel. 

Absolutely pitiful that's your only answer to my point. Pathetic, considering the cral you've put up in here.

I mean actual humans, actual people you speak to. Real people. Tell your Mum she supports genocide when she sends a Christmas card. Tell your nieces or nephews you won't give them an Easter Egg while you give them the peado speech. Have a big discussion over the Christmas Lunch.

Real people. You believe this shite, so tell them. Go and tell them, don't just type it out on here. Tell them to "counter your points". Tell them. Tell them.

You've never ever done that and you never ever will.

Why should you tip toe around a belief system with such abhorrent commands at its core? I've had discussions with beleivers outside the forum about it despite you claiming otherwise.

The CoE have cherry picked the scripture to such an extent it is now about strawberry jam and summer fates.

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

You would have bumped if I hadnt

That is a primary school playground level of an answer.

'He did it first Miss'

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why should you tip toe around a belief system with such abhorrent commands at its core? I've had discussions with beleivers outside the forum about it despite you claiming otherwise.

The CoE have cherry picked the scripture to such an extent it is now about strawberry jam and summer fates.

Bless. You believe the cliche as probably only watch Coronation St

[whelk]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

That is a primary school playground level of an answer.

'He did it first Miss'

At least you made me smile

[Turkish]

43 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

They are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. 

It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians.

The duck rape thread is going around in circles again! 😉😁

this is deeply flawed you virgin 

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

A better designed eye?

MLG has got the hump with god because he wears glasses. That’s what all this is about 😀

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

A better designed eye?

Well that would certainly help. Because the human eye is terribly designed if it appeared into existence. It is wired backwards and is not efficient at all.

It is how it is due to evolving from what was originally a flat bed of light sensitive cells which eventually formed a ball.

[Turkish]

42 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) That isn't a realistic suggestion.

2) I have talked to JW's in the street standing by their bookstands about it. Of course we hit a brick wall and they couldn't provide anything other than a circular argument... 'The book is true because the book says it is true'.

This is deeply flawed 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

1) this is deeply flawed 2) you virgin 

1) Why is it?

2) Nope, you must try harder with your petty insults

[CB Fry]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why should you tip toe around a belief system with such abhorrent commands at its core?

When you've grown the balls to berate your own mother about it, let me know.

You've never spoken to anyone you are close to about it. Not once. You know it, I know it.

Tip-toeing gutless wimp.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by CB Fry

[Matthew Le God]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So, you can't, or won't, answer a simple question, instead you pass the buck onto an allegedly omnipresent being who may, or may not, exist. This is a simple question, aimed squarely at you; What proof would YOU accept ?

It is a flawed question until the God has been defined. It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is.

[Turkish]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) Why is it?

2) Nope, you must try harder with your petty insults

1/ You used an image of a person with a bible with a cross on it, JWs do not believe in the cross. 
 

2/ speccy virgin 

 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, CB Fry said:

When you've grown the balls to berate your own mother about it, let me know.

Youve never spoken to anyone you are close to about it. Not once. You know it, I know it.

Tip-toeing gutless wimp.

I have no need to berate my mother about it, because she does not belief in a god.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Well that would certainly help. Because the human eye is terribly designed if it appeared into existence. It is wired backwards and is not efficient at all.

It is how it is due to evolving from what was originally a flat bed of light sensitive cells which eventually formed a ball.

4 eyed loser 

[CB Fry]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

I have no need to berate my mother about it, because she does not belief in a god.

She doesn't do Christmas lunch, then? She must be furious with you because we all know that you have one, every year.

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

It is a flawed question until the God has been defined. It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is.

If God hasn't 'been defined', why are you bothered ? As for your second sentence, on one side hundreds of millions of believers, on the other MLG. Not so impossible after all.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

1/ You used an image of a person with a bible with a cross on it, JWs do not believe in the cross. 
 

2/ speccy virgin 

 

1) Take it up with Matt Stone and Trey Parker

2) I wear contact lenses and have children

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Take it up with Matt Stone and Trey Parker

2) I wear contact lenses and have children

1) I have no idea who they are but you obviously have no idea what they believe in

2) so you have got the hump with god over your eyes 🤣🤣

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

1) If God hasn't 'been defined', why are you bothered ? As for your second sentence, 2) on one side hundreds of millions of believers, on the other MLG. Not so impossible after all.

1) You asked me what it would take for me to belief. That can not be done until the 'thing' has been defined. What God is it you want me to say what proof it would take for me to believe, what attributes does it have?

2)

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) You asked me what it would take for me to belief. That can not be done until the 'thing' has been defined. What God is it you want me to say what proof it would take for me to believe, what attributes does it have?

2)

"It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is"

 

If millions of people believe in something, it is, by definition, NOT impossible to state belief in that thing. QED. I did not make a statement as to the existence or not of God based on belief, I merely pointed out that your argument that something was impossible is actually demonstrably not so.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

1) I have no idea who they are but you obviously have no idea what they believe in

2) so you have got the hump with god over your eyes 🤣🤣

 

1) Creators of South Park

2a) You can't have the 'hump' with something you don't believe has met its burden of proof for existence.

2b) (or not 2b) Short sightedness isn't a 'good design'. If there was design... it is inept.

He should have been tasked with designing fjords like Slartibartfast!

 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"It is impossible to state belief in something existing if it has not been defined as to what it is"

 

If millions of people believe in something, it is, by definition, NOT impossible to state belief in that thing. QED. I did not make a statement as to the existence or not of God based on belief, I merely pointed out that your argument that something was impossible is actually demonstrably not so.

Deeply flawed as those people who state their belief also have their own definitions for their god. Problem is no two definitions of god are the exactly the same. Each person creates their own definition of 'him/it/whatever'.

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Creators of South Park

2a) You can't have the 'hump' with something you don't believe has met its burden of proof for existence.

2b) (or not 2b) Short sightedness isn't a 'good design'. If there was design... it is inept.

He should have been tasked with designing fjords like Slartibartfast!

 

We’ve got to the bottom of it haven’t we. It’s why you’ve been been going on about the flawed design of the eye as well. MLG is upset about his dodgy eyes it’s taken over year but I knew we’d get there in the end 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Deeply flawed as those people who state their belief also have their own definitions for their god. Problem is no two definitions of god are the exactly the same.

You are the most stubborn and blinkered poster on the forum.

If only one person believes in the existence of something purely on faith, and without that thing being further defined, then it is clearly not 'impossible' to believe in something that lacks definition. If each of those many millions of believers each holds their own personal view of God, it in no way vindicates your argument; in fact each and every one of them disproves it.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Turkish said:

We’ve got to the bottom of it haven’t we. It’s why you’ve been been going on about the flawed design of the eye as well. MLG is upset about his dodgy eyes 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Would you agree that me (and millions of others) who have poor eyesight renders a belief in perfect design to be nonsense? Many Christians use the human eye as evidence of creation, if it was designed it is a fuck up and god is inept.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

You are the most stubborn and blinkered poster on the forum.

If only one person believes in the existence of something purely on faith, and without that thing being further defined, then it is clearly not 'impossible' to believe in something that lacks definition. If each of those many millions of believers each holds their own personal view of God, it in no way vindicates your argument; in fact each and every one of them disproves it.

Belief without definition is an oxymoron. You can't belief in something by definition if you can't define it. This is basic stuff badger! 🙄

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Would you agree that me (and millions of others) who have poor eyesight renders a belief in perfect design to be nonsense? Many Christians use the human eye as evidence of creation, if it was designed it is a fuck up and god is inept.

The design is perfect as hundreds of millions of other people do have great eyesight, so I’m sure they’d disagree with you. I guess like any mass produced product there are going to be some that fall below standards, I guess if your eyes were a Ralph Lauren polo shirt they’d be for sale in TK Maxx or gunwharf quay rather than the official Ralph Lauren stores like mine and many others. It’s hilarious it’s made you so bitter and very odd

Edited 4 April, 2021 by Turkish

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Belief without definition is an oxymoron. You can't belief in something by definition if you can't define it. This is basic stuff badger! 🙄

Yet millions appear to do so, admittedly under the broad-brush definition "Supreme creator and ruler of the Universe".

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

The design is perfect as hundreds of millions of other people do have great eyesight, so I’m sure they’d disagree with you. I guess like any mass produced product there are going to be some that fall below standards, I guess if your eyes were a Ralph Lauren polo shirt they’d be for sale in TK Maxx or gunwharf quay rather than the official Ralph Lauren stores like mine and many others. It’s hilarious it’s made you so bitter and very odd

The claim many make that it is pefect design from an infallible, all knowing, all powerful deity falls apart if there are some that fall below standard.

It isn't just some that fall below standards, all human eyes are wired badly if they were created. A good design would be for them to not have the blood vessels pass in front.