Introduction
Offline I would like to say hello, to everyone at the RR Squad. This is my very first post although I've read a few other peoples introductions. I originally heard about this website when a number of representatives went on youtube to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. I must admit that I thought it was very bold and provocative but simultaneously misguided. I grew up going to a Catholic Church and although no religion has me now, I am quite sure that neither the Bible nor the Holy Spirit are what you mean to be condeming. I have studied quite a few Sacred Texts and the Bible is the most truthful of them all. If you are as rational as you all claim or believe, then perhaps you just haven't read it correctly. I don't particularly blame anyone for condeming members of Christian religions as they often haven't been very prudent about the placement of their faith, but the Bible is beyond reasonable doubt as truthful as it gets. So, that is my introduction message and I hope I can get to understand exactly where you hearts are in relation to the Bible and also Religion and perhaps I'd also like to know whether or not you all believe that Atheism and Rational thinking are synonymous? It seems like they go hand and hand on this website.
Til next post..
1-24
- Login to post comments
Thank you for your post. Which part is incoherent? Give me something to work with. It makes sense to me, so for you to say it is incoherent, you have to tell me what you can't understand.
You tried to get away with redefining common words. Accurate definitions of the words proof and truth do not contain the sort of wiggle room that your arguments require to work. Furthermore, the semantic knots in which you tie yourself trying to argue that your god can create a rock too heavy to lift and still be omnipotent by claiming that carpets have the "latent" ability to fly are only indicative of the "proofs" you give. You have nothing here. Claiming that you win by default because nobody cares to dissect your shit point by point puts you on the same intellectual level as any other troll we put up with. You, like they, are wasting our time. Time to honor your bet, and pay up.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
Stop with the money - nobody expects it, and it's sad that you're bringing it up.
Your ability to make things clear is about as non-existent as your evidence for the supernatural.
I'll sum up, for the people not interested in wading through your argument:
1. "Third Eye" assertion (believers can see something atheists can't)
2. Omnipotence is meaningless
3. Potential for any kind of power means omnipotence (?!?)
4. You're a child of God
That's basically it. The reason that doesn't prove anything is because in order to prove something, you'd have to be saying something first. The above is pseudo-philosophical nothingness.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The whole thing.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Please explain the phenomenon: The Truth and The Infallible are at odds.
It seems contradictory as I read through it. Perhaps include examples?
Once I fully comprehend this concept then perhaps i can move forward.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Don't make me prove you with my philosophy. I'll do it. Don't think I won't.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm sorry, Nick, I have to disagree with you there. If you copy and paste that whole post into Word (to find out that the word count is 3,775 of utter bullshit, for example) I think you'll find that it is in fact 9 pages of incomprehensible drivel.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
Thank you for your post. Okay - I'm going to respond to this remark in the way that I think you are trying to ask a question.
Let's say someone tells you that there are unicorns in Iceland. Draws a picture of these unicorns so you know what they look like etc. You want to actually see one so you go to Iceland and look everywhere for them but you can't find anything that resembles this picture. Well, thats because they don't exist. You cannot discover what does not exist.
Let's say someone tells an eskimo there are black people in Africa. Draws a picture and the such. The eskimo then wants to see them so he goes to Africa to look. He discovers one.
I believe this is what you are asking. Or is it?
Look the bottom line is you promised to make a donation to this site if you did not prove God existed beyond all reasonable doubt. You have not met your burden, the fact that your argument admittedly requires faith means there is reasonable doubt. You can give the most coherent and intelligent argument ever given for the existence of God but as long as it requires faith there is reasonable doubt.
Do you understand that?
A district attorney cannot stand up in a court room and give a philosophical argument or an argument based in faith. You need some kind of proof to meet your burden and you have offered none. Proof beyond all reasonable doubt requires evidence. In court the most common forms of evidence are direct, real, demonstrative, and documentary evidence. This is not a court but you gave yourself the burden of proving your case beyond all reasonable doubt so your case should be held to the same standards.
As far as I see you have not shown any kind of evidence.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Okay, so far there are no unicorns in Iceland, and there are black people in Africa. I'm totally with you right now. Both of those statements are understandable.
Here's the problem: we've been all over the place, and we still haven't found God, despite numerous drawings.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Thanks again for your post.
Okay. If one were to ask themselves, 'what cannot be false about knowledge' one will uncover that a property of knowledge is that one cannot know that he doesn't know. This property is not readily available to us, which is why it must be uncovered. There is a certain relentlessness about the pursuit of knowledge that does not make sense in terms of the infallible. When one pursues some bit of knowledge, do they know what they are pursuing?
Well of course the answer is no. But in terms of the truth, this is why they relentlessly pursue. Because they want to acquire that knowledge. In terms of the infallible, this is why one wouldn't bother attempting to pursue - that being doesn't know what it is that is being pursued.
Thus, in light of knowledge the infallible and the truth make different normative conclusions.
Does that make sense?
1-24
Thanks for your quick response.
The audience you are addressing understands unicorns do not exist and I think I speak for all of us that we have all experienced visually the existence of Black people (without going to africa)
So lets say someone tells me there is a god. he/ she explains how this god has affected their lives, loved them, they talk about how this god is someone they can confide in and pray to and love them. I want to be part of this gods life so I open my heart and mind to the possibility and for years and years I don't feel this connection, this love, so I discover that said god does not exist.
Can you draw a picture of god?
Can you give us the address or a phone # to contact him (and don't tell us heaven and prayer)
Will he come onto this forum and appear before us?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Maybe, if you see how this applies to what I have already written, then you will see where God is. In other words, seek to find. Are you a vegetable? Do you want to be spoon fed?
I am posting this again because you have obviously ignored it and I believe it is the only valid point. You owe this site a donation as you have not proved your case.
Look the bottom line is you promised to make a donation to this site if you did not prove God existed beyond all reasonable doubt. You have not met your burden, the fact that your argument admittedly requires faith means there is reasonable doubt. You can give the most coherent and intelligent argument ever given for the existence of God but as long as it requires faith there is reasonable doubt.
Do you understand that?
A district attorney cannot stand up in a court room and give a philosophical argument or an argument based in faith. You need some kind of proof to meet your burden and you have offered none. Proof beyond all reasonable doubt requires evidence. In court the most common forms of evidence are direct, real, demonstrative, and documentary evidence. This is not a court but you gave yourself the burden of proving your case beyond all reasonable doubt so your case should be held to the same standards.
As far as I see you have not shown any kind of evidence, let alone any sort of valid evidence.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I would say that this conclusion that you made, after opening your heart and mind, is a plausible conclusion. And I would also say that it is not your fault for not seeing god. If god is present, she should attempt to reveal him to you. Furthermore, if god is evident to the theist, there must be some faculty she has by which she is able to conclude his presence. If you do not have evidence for him, then it is on her to figure out how to, in a sense, get that faculty working.
Tell me what is the faith that is required.
That faculty is called Delusion.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Speaking of that..here are a few things for YOU to read
http://www.rationalresponders.com/still_dont_think_that_theism_is_a_mental_disorder
http://www.rationalresponders.com/still_dont_think_theism_is_a_mind_disorder_part_deux
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
More than likely, yes. Anyone who tries to talk about God as a pleasant thing more than likely does not understand God.
1-24
Neither of those links work.
1-24
More than likely anyone who tries to talk about god as an existing thing doesn't understand that they are deluded.
"But still I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me!" ~Rudyard Kipling
Mazid the Raider says: I'd rather face the naked truth than to go "augh, dude, put some clothes on or something" and hand him some God robes, cause you and I know that the naked truth is pale, hairy, and has an outie
Entomophila says: Ew. AN outie
Nick B,
As I asked, show me where the faith is required. Look at you pulling claims out the butt. LOL, you can't even show me where faith is required. Don't talk about money until you can show me the faith.
1-24
You said several times faith was required and even if it is not you provide no valid evidence that meets to burden of proof you set for yourself.
Proof beyond all reasonable doubt means that your case must be proven to such an extent that no reasonable person could have any reasonable doubt that your case is true. I submit that any reasonable person would still have doubt because the burden of proof has not been met. Burden of proof cannot be met without any evidence. If you cannot provide valid evidence you have not met your burden therefore you owe RSS money.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
That is a direct quote. Regardless of faith you have not proven your case beyond reasonable doubt. So pay up or crawl back to your subservient life.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
First off Nick, I think you ought to consent to the fact that you claimed my argument was wrong based on an invalid argument - that it required faith. I did say several times that faith was required, but that faith is required at the second half of the proof. I think this goes to show that you didn't even give what I wrote the time of day. Now you are trying to move to a different argument to claim that what I said was wrong. I will not allow you to do this. You clearly have not demonstrated in anyway that you have even read what I have written. If you had read what I had written, you wouldn't have erroneously concluded that this argument was based on faith. There was no faith element in anything I wrote. In fact, the word faith was used only once, and it was to describe the wrong way in which one would seek evidence. Nick, you have to admit that you are making claims that do not come from any argument I have made. I don't even think you can sum up what I have said even if you tried. Not to say that you have tried to read it. You just assumed from the beginning that I was confused or deluded. This is the only reason why you haven't accepted anything I have said. If you demonstrate in anyway a particular argument against what I have written then you will do this website a great justice in helping them receive the money I promised. As it is, you are only hurting that cause. You are showing that you've only skimmed, at best, anything I have written. So before you come with all your might and authority make sure you have something to back that might and authority up. Alright?
1-24
You say I don't have the ability to make things clear. Allow me to redeem myself. Obviously something is not clear to you. Otherwise you would not have made this claim.
1. Third Eye assertion: read what I said again. You think I am suggesting the very thing I told you that I was not suggesting. How stupid can one be to do this?
2. Omnipotence is meaningless: are you suggesting that omnipotence exists? point in case.
3. Potential for any kind of power means omnipotence: Yes. Is there a problem with this? Please tell me what that problem is. I would be happy to address it.
4. You're a child of God: I don't know, you tell me, are you. And please when you do answer this question. Please provide the implications of your answer based on the argument I established. Otherwise I don't care to here an answer.
Show me my opponent please. That's all I'm asking. Someone step up to the plate and attempt to refute my argument. Your arguments and refutations are all hollow. I yearn for something of substance from you - something that can be discussed. Prove me wrong so that I may become an atheist. You should be trying to convert me. You should be trying to make me like you as I am trying to make you like me. All I ask is that you be brave enough to attempt.
I made two separate claims, the first was that any claim based on fait cannot fulfil the burden of proof. If you want to refute that by saying that your argument requires no faith you are free to do so.
I also said that to satisfy your burden you must show evidence.
Your argument is philosophical and I clearly made a distinction between the two. A district attorney cannot stand up in court and give a philosophical argument. A philosophical argument does not satisfy the burden of proof. You can tack on to the word fait but I clearly said that neither a faith based argument nor a philosophical argument satisfies the burden of proof.
Stop making shit up and concentrate on the relevant facts.
1. You gave yourself the burden of proof.
2. You said if you did not meet that burden you would donate money to this site.
3. You did not meet that burden because a philosophical argument with no evidence cannot satisfy the burden of proof.
4. You own this site money and you are trying to wiggle your way out of it.
What is relevant here is the definition of burden of proof. I gave you a fair and accurate definition; by that definition you have not met your burden.
Fuck the word faith, faith is not relevant, it was a side point. I said that to show that even before you started you could not satisfy the burden of proof. The main point I made is that the burden of proof requires evidence and you have not put any forward.
I tried to read what you wrote but as I have already said it is incoherent drivel. Even if I understood it all you still have not put forth any evidence. As evidence is needed to meet your burden YOU HAVE NOT MET YOUF FUCKING BURDEN.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I was seeking to find. Actually, I don't know of any other reason to seek, but that's beside the point.
I read your post. You keep saying the same things over and over. If we lack your third eye, we can't discover the truth that is God. Then some nonesense about omnipotence that implies that everyone who has the potential to do anything is a child of God.
It's not a proof by any standard. Not even theologically is it a proof. Not even metaphysically. You're wandering in realms you cannot navigate.
Am I a vegetable? Wait for 1-24's definitive proof that I'm a vegetable, coming soon!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Before I write anything further about the response you just posted. Will you consent to the fact that you dismissed my argument on invalid grounds?
I dismissed your argument for several reasons, the reasons are listed below:
1. You have provided no evidence. To satisfy burden of proof you need evidence and you have provide no evidence.
2. Your argument is a philosophical one and the very nature of a philosophical argument makes it unable to satisfy the burden of proof.
3. You claimed that your argument requires faith and the very nature of a faith based argument makes it unable to satisfy the burden of proof.
You claim one of my reasons is invalid (faith), if so I withdraw that claim but two still remain.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
1-24 I seriously think you have allowed "language" to pwn your brain. Words do not create evidence. It's a tool to describe evidence. You're not describing any evidence. You're just babbling.
I can't believe how much time all these people have wasted refuting you.
Go sit in your little corner, rock back and forth, and mutter, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right.". At least then you won't be wasting other people's time.
Bye.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
If I am understanding you correctly, you are trying to navigate about my claims as though they should fit some standard. Or, you think that my claims should conform to some standard of theology, or metaphysics, or some other standard? You are saying that this proof is outside the box of any standard you have ever known? Is that correct. Is this why you cannot find anything false in what I have claimed? I am trying to get an understanding of what you are refuting. As of now you have not refuted anything. You judge by standards you already know.
To me this seems similar to the deaf girl in my example who would judge her friend to be confused because he heard it was raining. She is absolutely right. He is confused, by her simple understanding and standards. If she could only fathom the faculty of hearing, she would not think him confused. I hope one day you have a friend who is deaf and when you sign to her about what you hear, she will laugh at you. You know what you will think, then??? The Jokes On YoU!!
You will laugh at her and she will laugh at you and everyone will be laughing at each other. What a comedy of errors.
Watcher, this doesn't sound like someone who wants to get rid of Theism. And what do you mean by 'pwn'. I'm trying to help you see what is initially not visible to every human being. That is all.
As I said what you wrote is incoherent drivel. In other words it looks like somebody with a poor command of English wrote that crap. It is obvious you tried to use big words to make yourself sound smart but all you have done is created pages of unreadable crap. We have nothing to refute because very little of what you said is understandable.
What you have written is unclear nonsense and I think everybody here agrees with me on that. So get of your fucking pedestal and stop treating us like we have been stunned by your intelligent argument. Your argument makes no sense, if you are craving a debate rewrite that crap in a clear and concise manner.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
You still have not stated that you rejected my argument on an invalid claim. You said you withdraw the statement. But you have not said that you rejected it on an invalid claim, as you actually did. Please state before I get to your other arguments.
This is cringe-worthy, but I'll respond.
Okay, let's say then that there was no point in putting in the "deaf girl" part of your diatribe. Why did you put that in there, then? Number one is amended:
1. It takes no special skill to grasp something that one cannot experience.
No, I was just trying to summarize your argument. I'd say that omnipotence doesn't exist. Amending:
2. Omnipotence doesn't exist AND it's meaningless.
Well, for one thing, even assuming omnipotence exists, how does "somewhat powerful" immediately imply "all powerful"? It doesn't follow at all.
K. I'm not a child of God. The argument you established is such a merry-go-round that I'd have to say "I'm not because I'm not" in order to match it. Or is it because omnipotence doesn't exist? None of the parts of your argument actually follow each other, so I could say "I've discovered that I'm not a child of God" I suppose. Or I "discovered" that the person calling me stupid spells "hear" "here". Y'know, whatever.
We'd have to have something to refute. You gave us statements that don't even follow each other. What's to refute, that you jump from topic to topic without actually addressing anything? You're right, I can't refute your ranting, exceedingly complexicated non-argument.
Ditto, Kimosabe.
You don't have to become an atheist. You can do whatever you want. First, kindly explain the jumps between "discovery", "omnipotence" and "child of God."
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I have a poor command of English? I asked you to consent to the fact that you made an invalid argument. What did you do? You beat around the bush. You said 'I withdraw that claim'. I didn't ask you to 'withdraw the claim', I asked you to admit that the claim you made was invalid. There is a great difference, yet you beat around the bush. You do not know how to read what the words say. Therefore, you do not know how to respond to what the words say. You read what the words suggest. This is why you are so often in error, when you disagree with what I say. Learn how to read what is actually in the sentence - stop reading what your mind makes up. Read what is there. That is how you can have an honest discussion. Learn what I am honestly saying.
Among other things, this virtual diarrhetic rambling indicates that you have no clue about many things.
I'd tell you to remember that famous quote by Mark Twain before you write another incoherent, rambling paragraph about subjects that you do not understand, but it is too late.
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
You have removed all doubt.
I rejected your argument on a valid claim based on what you said.
You said your argument required faith you idiot. If you say your argument requires faith do not bullshit me when I say faith makes the argument invalid. Also I did not withdraw the claim, I said I withdraw it if it is invalid. Since you said that your argument requires faith I do not believe anything I said was invalid.
The bottom line is that I made a valid argument, you claim that one of my points is invalid, that does not invalidate the entire argument. You cannot just say that you do not agree with me so you will not answer the only really valid point.
You are just trying to avoid replying to me because you know I am right. Everybody here knows I am right. You claimed that you would satisfy the burden of proof and by the definition of 'burden of proof' you have not satisfied it.
So you stop beating around the fucking bush and admit you have not satisfied the burden of proof.
P.S. When you have scientists telling you what you wrote makes no funking sense..... it probably makes no fucking sense.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Alright. You want to take it to what I said in the past. That is fine. But I will also take it to what I said in the past in my post to Shikko (#94) I wrote.
Now, having that said, seeing as how you could not find anything other than this in my proof regarding evidence, your claim about faith is invalid. Now you said that you will withdraw your claim if it is invalid. It is invalid. I did not ask you to withdraw that claim. I asked you to admit that you made that claim based on no founded evidence. As is, there is no founded evidence for that claim. Please admit that the claim was made based on no founded evidence.
You're amazing. By "standard" I mean any standard means of communicating. As an example, we've already settled upon English (or as close as we can muster) for discussing this. That's a "standard". Symbolic logic would be a standard, and the language of philosophy would be a standard. If you honestly believe that you're brushing aside 4,000 years of thought in saying that "discoverable truth" -> "some power = all power" -> "child of God" I don't know how I can help you. You're not exactly blowing anyone away, here.
Would this be the time to introduce you to my ASL teacher? She's a sweetheart, and has been deaf since birth. Being deaf doesn't mean being mentally deficient.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Will, in your question you had a given: There was no point in putting the 'deaf girl' part in the evidence.
Now you want me to give you a point for putting it in. You want me to negate the given? This is a foolish thing to ask me to do. Please admit to the foolishness of this hypothetical before I address the rest of what you said.
That is a quote from you, that is why I made my point of faith because you said your argument had an element of faith. My point was fucking valid.
Even if the small side point concerning faith was invalid it does not make my entire fucking argument invalid. My argument consisted of several points on of which you claim was invalid. I disagree with that claim and I clearly demonstrated why I made the claim. I made the claim because you yourself said your argument was based on faith.
Stop beating around the bush. The facts a clear, you have not satisfied your burden. If it was or wasn't faith based is of no consequence you still have no satisfied your burden.
Stop being such a little bitch, you are avoiding the facts because they undeniably prove you are an idiot and you owe this site money. Be a fucking man, no be a decent human. Stop looking for excuses and face up to the fact that your argument does not satisfy the burden you claimed you would satisfy.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Nick. I am going to describe to you what has all transpired. You took a quote from me. It was from something I said on this thread in the past. You used what I said to conclude that my argument was invalid. I took a quote from this thread. A quote that I made to Shikko negating the invalidness of the claim you took. For that reason, what you used to conclude that my argument was invalid is now void.
Now, I did not say that I would not address your other points. I merely wanted you to admit of the error you made before I did address your other point. This way, we can have, if anything, the illusion of cooperation - the illusion that we are working together to find out what each other is saying. Is this too much to ask? Apparently it is because you have not yet admitted that you formed this conclusion based on insufficient evidence. Please concede to this. Then I will address your other point. Thank you.
Okay, I'll rephrase: you think that a non-believer is like the deaf girl, and you're the hearing person, and we should just take your word for it that you can hear it raining. Am I following?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Again, Will for the sake of the illusion of cooperation, please humble yourself and admit to the foolishness of your claim. Before I go forth you need to humble yourself.
My conclusion was based on evidence you claim was incomplete. As far as I am concerned that claim is only being made because you are scared of addressing the issue I brought up. The point is that you do not want to address the other issues because you cannot address them. You never planned to pay the money I highly doubt you even have the money
I do not believe this shit, you make a claim and a promise of a donation if you did not fulfil the claim. You did not fulfil the claim and now you are backing out when you a clearly wrong. You are a deluded low-life with absolutely no concept of reality. Again I think I speak for everyone here when I say fuck off and never come back.
You know what though? I never expected you would pay so it is not true that I am surprised. What I really cannot believe is what I gave up to sit here and argue with you. I had this gorgeous lawyer girl over at my place tonight; I was going to sleep with her. We have been trying to set-up a date for 2 fucking months. She is actually the one that explained all the burden of proof stuff to me so I could post it here. Instead of sleeping with the amazingly gorgeous and smart woman I spent 4 hours here arguing with you. She left extremely angry that I rather argue with some deluded idiot than fuck her. I cannot believe I spent 4 hours of my Saturday night here responding to your irrational bullshit. It actually makes me physically sick when I think about it. I just wish I could rewind this day a few hours. I want my 4 hours back.
I am not saying this to brag, I am saying this to illustrate what a useless waste of time arguing with this guy is and that we could all be doing something much more constructive. I mean anything is more cosntructive than this, isn't it?
Anyway guys I know I am not the person that should be saying this but arguing with this guy is futile. Just stop posting here and let him play all by himself. This guy is not only an irrational theist he is a completely irrational person, just like that Nazi in yesterdays thread. If you continue feeding this idiot his ego will continue to grow and we all know that he will never concede defeat. No matter what we do or say in his deluded mind he is always right and we cannot change that.
Like I said we should all have much better things to do than post in this thread. Even if you have only wasted 5 minutes on this asshole it is 5 minutes too many. This guy does not deserve the time of anybody here.
P.S. It is also obvious that he is unstable I mean he obviously has delusions of grandeur wanting me to admit I am wrong (when I am not) before we can continue to tale. He wants HisWillness to humble himself and admit his foolishness. He thinks his word is sacred and that everybody should bow to him. He is a nut.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
NICK B, THE MAN WHO CANNOT HUMBLE HIMSELF.
There you go again, reading what my words suggest, not what they say. Do you now see how weak your weapon is? I come to you with the lowest of requests - that you humble yourself. How difficult it is for you to do this!!!! I am the one who hears and laughs at the deaf!!! What is it that you can laugh at? Your weak weapon? I come as one man to make a fool of your strength. And I succeed. I expose the weakness of your strength and like a dumb ox you resort back to it. You have no more power left. Go run off to your 'humble' abode!
Are you on some type of hallucinogenic drug? Where is this blockbuster evidence you claim to have?
SHOW ME MY OPPONENT!!!!