Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Time For Theists To Throw In The Towel

Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2019 11:56:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
We all know that when it comes down to it, The "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, Reason and logic in their favour yet, Theists have, Well, Let's face it, Nothing to justify their belief.

But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, Whichever way it goes?

A court of law, For example, Must use all the evidence available to determine a case.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, We have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2019 11:23:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
We all know that when it comes down to it, The "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, Reason and logic in their favour yet, Theists have, Well, Let's face it, Nothing to justify their belief.

But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, Whichever way it goes?

A court of law, For example, Must use all the evidence available to determine a case.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, We have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?


If you know anything about courtrooms and the way it works - which clearly you are na"ve and know nothing about, Then you would know that in every court case - there is the prosecutor and the defendant, Or the applicant and the respondent.

The one bringing the action - hence in criminal matters it is generally the Police and in civil matters it is the applicant - has to demonstrate on the required standard that a case has to be answered. If there is no case to be answered as often is the case - the defendant stands up and says to the judge - YH, There is no case to be answered - the police have not proved their case. And if the judge agrees - which invariably he does - then the case is dismissed without any evidence produced by the defendant.

This is called the burden of proof. And it is on the person asserting such case is the one who has to prove his case. When it comes to God or no God, The question is - upon who does the burden of proof lie? And atheists generally say - it is for the theists to prove because they are asserting that something exists. Or we are doing is denying it.

But this of course is not how the burden of proof is established. Atheists try and run that argument but it is a false one.

Generally speaking - and indeed even in mad scientific circles who use the scientific method - it is not just one who makes an assertion - but one who makes an assertion that is contrary to the status quo. Hence, Anon - continues to call the Catholic church and religion wrong - but never offers any evidence. He wants the church itself to produce evidence it is right. He has it backwards. He does not understand evidence and he does not understand burden of proof.

When it comes to God - the status quo argument is that God exists. Every culture - every society - every generation - believes in some kind of god, Gods, Or other worldly being. It has only been very rarified individuals in history who are atheistic and in the modern generation - that atheism has become more common. But let us not overstate their position - they still are not a great big force. Even in our so called secular country of Australia - over 65% of Australians hold a belief in a god or gods.

It is the status quo position that god or gods exist. It is not on theists to prove God exists - it is the atheist who must prove god does not exist.

Yet to open up some other worms, In the case of theists - the question of burden of proof becomes relevant in relation to what kind of god, God is. Who has the status quo? And who does not? Who will have the burden and who will not?

Hence - willows the burden of proof is yours. But more than that - before you prosecute your case - you must provide the criteria that we both agree upon to make your case. This is half the problem isn't? It is the elements making up that criteria which is difficult to resolve or agree upon.

In a theft case - you would need to state what theft is in the first place in order to determine its elements which you need to prove.

Theft is defined as a person who takes property that does not belong solely to that person as though it was theirs and with no intention of returning it.

Hence - you need a person - so animals cannot steal.
- you need property - so you can't steal someone's emotions
- it needs to be property that does not belong to you solely - so it does not apply to property that is jointly owned
- that person must have no intention of returning it - so joy car rides are not theft.

Once you have established these things - the guilty act - and the intention then you have established that a case can be made - you turn to the defendant's lawyer and say - your turn.

then the defendant put his case.

so put your case dear Willow - the burden of proof is on you. We will still be waiting - at least until you can demonstrate that theism is not the status quo.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2019 7:21:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
We all know that when it comes down to it, The "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, Reason and logic in their favour yet, Theists have, Well, Let's face it, Nothing to justify their belief.

But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, Whichever way it goes?

A court of law, For example, Must use all the evidence available to determine a case.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, We have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?


If you know anything about courtrooms and the way it works - which clearly you are na"ve and know nothing about, Then you would know that in every court case - there is the prosecutor and the defendant, Or the applicant and the respondent.

The one bringing the action - hence in criminal matters it is generally the Police and in civil matters it is the applicant - has to demonstrate on the required standard that a case has to be answered. If there is no case to be answered as often is the case - the defendant stands up and says to the judge - YH, There is no case to be answered - the police have not proved their case. And if the judge agrees - which invariably he does - then the case is dismissed without any evidence produced by the defendant.

This is called the burden of proof. And it is on the person asserting such case is the one who has to prove his case. When it comes to God or no God, The question is - upon who does the burden of proof lie? And atheists generally say - it is for the theists to prove because they are asserting that something exists. Or we are doing is denying it.

But this of course is not how the burden of proof is established. Atheists try and run that argument but it is a false one.

Generally speaking - and indeed even in mad scientific circles who use the scientific method - it is not just one who makes an assertion - but one who makes an assertion that is contrary to the status quo. Hence, Anon - continues to call the Catholic church and religion wrong - but never offers any evidence. He wants the church itself to produce evidence it is right. He has it backwards. He does not understand evidence and he does not understand burden of proof.

When it comes to God - the status quo argument is that God exists. Every culture - every society - every generation - believes in some kind of god, Gods, Or other worldly being. It has only been very rarified individuals in history who are atheistic and in the modern generation - that atheism has become more common. But let us not overstate their position - they still are not a great big force. Even in our so called secular country of Australia - over 65% of Australians hold a belief in a god or gods.

It is the status quo position that god or gods exist. It is not on theists to prove God exists - it is the atheist who must prove god does not exist.

Yet to open up some other worms, In the case of theists - the question of burden of proof becomes relevant in relation to what kind of god, God is. Who has the status quo? And who does not? Who will have the burden and who will not?

Hence - willows the burden of proof is yours. But more than that - before you prosecute your case - you must provide the criteria that we both agree upon to make your case. This is half the problem isn't? It is the elements making up that criteria which is difficult to resolve or agree upon.

In a theft case - you would need to state what theft is in the first place in order to determine its elements which you need to prove.

Theft is defined as a person who takes property that does not belong solely to that person as though it was theirs and with no intention of returning it.

Hence - you need a person - so animals cannot steal.
- you need property - so you can't steal someone's emotions
- it needs to be property that does not belong to you solely - so it does not apply to property that is jointly owned
- that person must have no intention of returning it - so joy car rides are not theft.

Once you have established these things - the guilty act - and the intention then you have established that a case can be made - you turn to the defendant's lawyer and say - your turn.

then the defendant put his case.

so put your case dear Willow - the burden of proof is on you. We will still be waiting - at least until you can demonstrate that theism is not the status quo.

Here you go again, Off on your tangent of complete and utter idiocy, Making up false premises for your usual non sequitur reverse argument.

The status quo is not the existence of God or Gods. And anybody who asserts such is completely ignorant and arrogant.
65% of Australians do not believe there is a God.

Man, You have a distinct and profound case of reverse logic and making up an extremely flawed default position and a false conclusions from statistics certainly does your sanity no favour.

So, Ok. How do you arrive at such a conclusion that 65% of Australians hold a belief in a God or Gods?

(Now folks, Watch this one. He has made a major blunder and will try all the slimy tricks to avoid answering my well-justified query)
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2019 7:25:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Oh, And he will of course be even more concerned at his expectation of what Willows his going to hit him up for next.
Yes, You guessed it, The totally preposterous reasoning that somehow the existence of something totally unproven could ever be called a "default position".
I mean like, What the!

Anyway, Let's sit with bated breath to see if he will even attempt to dig his way out of the first deep hole. . . . 65% of Australians eh?
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2019 8:21:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
All of a sudden TS, The genius wants to focus on the ratio of Australian theists and not the burden of proof.

I wonder why?

You challenged him. Did he meet your challenge? I didn't see it.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2019 11:08:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
https://quickstats. Censusdata. Abs. Gov. Au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2019 1:28:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
https://quickstats. Censusdata. Abs. Gov. Au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036

So bloody what?
Show me where the census states "that 65% of Australians hold a belief in a God or Gods"

I'll tell you where it states that. Nowhere.

Does it perhaps say that 35% of Australians have no religion?

Could it be that you are making another stupid non sequitur conclusion that because the remainder state that they belong to a religion that they believe in God?

The same census "states" (yes, States) that less than 13. 4% of Catholics in Australia regularly attend church. In other words, More than 86% of Catholics (and, No doubt other denominations) give their religion no more than lip service?

Or did you simply overlook that in making your "informed" conclusion?

Now stop being so stupid and simply accept that you made a major blunder with your absurd statement that 65% of Australians believe there is a God.

And, Talking of major blunders, Let's move on to the next faux pas, Shall we?

Explain, In simple language why something that is introduced and claimed to exist yet is not proven in any way, Becomes the status quo, Or default position?

Oh, And also explain the absurdity of why the onus is on others to disprove something completely absurd and that isn't proven in the least bit whatsoever.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2019 3:19:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows responded:

So bloody what?
Show me where the census states "that 65% of Australians hold a belief in a God or Gods"


I amusing the stats that state that less than 30% say they have no religion as a basis for the following:

That at least 70% state clearly they have a religion which they hold to - it is not about whether they are practising or not - it is a belief in a god or gods or something. In our day and age - I hardly think people are going to admit to such without considering that this means - ipso facto - a belief in god. Still because I know some people attend church who are atheists - mostly uniting church ministers - I have reduced the total amount by 5% below what the census itself states.

Of the remaining 30% or thereabouts - I would further suggest probably about half of them believe in god or gods or some kind of spirituality. Not holding to a religion - simply means organised religion. Many people believe in God but do not go to church or hold to a religion. Nevertheless, Willow, Because I take this on an anecdotal basis - I have not added it to the other 70%. I have take the very conservative position that this 30% is 100% atheists - which is not true.

Hence my figure of 65% of people who believe in God or gods is fairly conservative estimate.

Could it be that you are making another stupid non sequitur conclusion that because the remainder state that they belong to a religion that they believe in God?

It is not a non-sequitur. It is the position that over 65% of Australians defined themselves as religious - meaning a believer in a god or gods. I am not talking Christian or church attender - but religious. It is a direct line. And for you to argue otherwise shows how disingenuous and desperate you are.

The same census "states" (yes, States) that less than 13. 4% of Catholics in Australia regularly attend church. In other words, More than 86% of Catholics (and, No doubt other denominations) give their religion no more than lip service?

So what? People can lip service to whatever - the data shows that these people identify with a religion which believes in a god.

Or did you simply overlook that in making your "informed" conclusion?

Now stop being so stupid and simply accept that you made a major blunder with your absurd statement that 65% of Australians believe there is a God.

I am not the one being stupid. I drawn a conclusion on real data. I have made conservative adjustments and have even intentionally omitted a significant group which I think would add even great numbers. You are the one who is fighting the stats - not me.

Explain, In simple language why something that is introduced and claimed to exist yet is not proven in any way, Becomes the status quo, Or default position?

I addressed the question of burden of proof above. Others can read it and understand. Are you a doofus? Status quo - is the prevailing position - some might call it axiomatic. You might need to get a dictionary. And you really need to ask questions that make sense or at least look like you have actually considered the thought. Logic - have you heard of that? What came first - logic or proof of it? And if the former, Does the latter make it so? And if the latter? How did that occur without the former?

The answer of course - that neither came first. Why? Because logic is an axiom. Logic does not require proof to be so.

Your problem is that I am putting you in the impossible - and I agree it is impossible - position of proving god does not exist. We all know this which is why you are quibbling about data from the ABS and why you are dumbfounded by the burden of proof - and who has what? And I agree that for you it is difficult. Yet, God or gods or belief in gods is the default position. It is not the other way around - despite the appeal for it to be for persons such as yourself.

Oh, And also explain the absurdity of why the onus is on others to disprove something completely absurd and that isn't proven in the least bit whatsoever.

Do you mean like evolution?
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2019 5:02:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
Willows responded:

So bloody what?
Show me where the census states "that 65% of Australians hold a belief in a God or Gods"


I amusing the stats that state that less than 30% say they have no religion as a basis for the following:

That at least 70% state clearly they have a religion which they hold to - it is not about whether they are practising or not - it is a belief in a god or gods or something. In our day and age - I hardly think people are going to admit to such without considering that this means - ipso facto - a belief in god. Still because I know some people attend church who are atheists - mostly uniting church ministers - I have reduced the total amount by 5% below what the census itself states.

Of the remaining 30% or thereabouts - I would further suggest probably about half of them believe in god or gods or some kind of spirituality. Not holding to a religion - simply means organised religion. Many people believe in God but do not go to church or hold to a religion. Nevertheless, Willow, Because I take this on an anecdotal basis - I have not added it to the other 70%. I have take the very conservative position that this 30% is 100% atheists - which is not true.

Hence my figure of 65% of people who believe in God or gods is fairly conservative estimate.

Could it be that you are making another stupid non sequitur conclusion that because the remainder state that they belong to a religion that they believe in God?

It is not a non-sequitur. It is the position that over 65% of Australians defined themselves as religious - meaning a believer in a god or gods. I am not talking Christian or church attender - but religious. It is a direct line. And for you to argue otherwise shows how disingenuous and desperate you are.

The same census "states" (yes, States) that less than 13. 4% of Catholics in Australia regularly attend church. In other words, More than 86% of Catholics (and, No doubt other denominations) give their religion no more than lip service?

So what? People can lip service to whatever - the data shows that these people identify with a religion which believes in a god.

Or did you simply overlook that in making your "informed" conclusion?

Now stop being so stupid and simply accept that you made a major blunder with your absurd statement that 65% of Australians believe there is a God.

I am not the one being stupid. I drawn a conclusion on real data. I have made conservative adjustments and have even intentionally omitted a significant group which I think would add even great numbers. You are the one who is fighting the stats - not me.

Explain, In simple language why something that is introduced and claimed to exist yet is not proven in any way, Becomes the status quo, Or default position?

I addressed the question of burden of proof above. Others can read it and understand. Are you a doofus? Status quo - is the prevailing position - some might call it axiomatic. You might need to get a dictionary. And you really need to ask questions that make sense or at least look like you have actually considered the thought. Logic - have you heard of that? What came first - logic or proof of it? And if the former, Does the latter make it so? And if the latter? How did that occur without the former?

The answer of course - that neither came first. Why? Because logic is an axiom. Logic does not require proof to be so.

Your problem is that I am putting you in the impossible - and I agree it is impossible - position of proving god does not exist. We all know this which is why you are quibbling about data from the ABS and why you are dumbfounded by the burden of proof - and who has what? And I agree that for you it is difficult. Yet, God or gods or belief in gods is the default position. It is not the other way around - despite the appeal for it to be for persons such as yourself.

Oh, And also explain the absurdity of why the onus is on others to disprove something completely absurd and that isn't proven in the least bit whatsoever.

Do you mean like evolution?

Evolution through natural selection has been irrefutably proven many times over and you can argue the toss as much as you like but it is an established fact.

Belief in God and the existence of God are two different things.
The belief in something that is based purely upon superstitious speculation (and absolutely nothing else) hardly makes it a prevailing default position by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course nobody can disprove something that is unproven but that does not give God nuts the right to make an idiotic converse conclusion which does of course place the onus back on them to justify or prove their idiosyncratic belief.

Otherwise, What an absurd, Stupid world we would live in if anyone is entitled to base their reasoning based purely on "you can't rule it out".

And since when have you ever seen a defendant charged with, Say, Murder stand in the dock at the commencement of his trial and the judge saying.
"Now, First off, Mr Tradie, Prove that you didn't commit the murder".

It would be absurd, Wouldn't it?
In fact, A defendant does not need to tender one piece of evidence whatsoever in order to maintain his innocence. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the accusation of something.

Just as it is the onus of deluded religious nuts to prove the presence of something over and above the presence of nothing.

Whichever way you choose to massage and twist around the paradigms the fact remains that something that was contrived solely on superstitious speculation has never had the slightest bit of evidence to substantiate it and there is a plethora of evidence that completely undermines such a loose notion which is why we have a default position of there being no God.

And until (or rather, If) any evidence is ever given, The status quo is as it always has been. There is no God.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2019 5:34:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Oh, And also explain the absurdity of why the onus is on others to disprove something completely absurd and that isn't proven in the least bit whatsoever.

Do you mean like evolution?

ZING! Ouch!
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2019 7:01:13 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
the status quo - means the prevailing view - is the default view until proven otherwise.

If you can produce a culture anywhere in the existence of humanity that does not believe in the existence of God or gods then you might have something to work with - but you won't - because it has never been the case.

It is the default position whether you like it or not - or whether you agree or not. The burden of proof is on those who insist God does not exist.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2019 11:32:01 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
the status quo - means the prevailing view - is the default view until proven otherwise.

If you can produce a culture anywhere in the existence of humanity that does not believe in the existence of God or gods then you might have something to work with - but you won't - because it has never been the case.

It is the default position whether you like it or not - or whether you agree or not. The burden of proof is on those who insist God does not exist.

In the words of one of the most thought-provoking intellectuals of our time, "The belief of God is and always has been ancillary to the way of thinking by man ever since some Neanderthal idiot living in a cave (or a mud hut) saw a bolt of lightning, Pointed upwards and declared in horror, "Like derrr, Somebody really big is up there, Derrrr".

We were all living quite happily, By default without thinking there is somehow some r sole floating around in space who made us.

It was you lot who decided to buck the status quo by believing something completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven and yet you somehow think that is the norm. You're off your fuc*ing nana and it may be the default position in a loony farm surrounded by high walls but certainly not out here in the real world.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 6:01:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
the status quo - means the prevailing view - is the default view until proven otherwise.

If you can produce a culture anywhere in the existence of humanity that does not believe in the existence of God or gods then you might have something to work with - but you won't - because it has never been the case.

It is the default position whether you like it or not - or whether you agree or not. The burden of proof is on those who insist God does not exist.

I don't think the idiot likes having the burden of proof TS.

Either way, I think his proof that God does not exist is that he doesn't believe God exists. In the years I've known him, That is the only reason he's ever given.

So you might as well quit, Cause if willowed doesn't believe it, It cannot be true. You're supposed to know that.

Lol. What an idiot.
Tradesecret
Posts: 1,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 10:31:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willow responded:

In the words of one of the most thought-provoking intellectuals of our time, "The belief of God is and always has been ancillary to the way of thinking by man ever since some Neanderthal idiot living in a cave (or a mud hut) saw a bolt of lightning, Pointed upwards and declared in horror, "Like derrr, Somebody really big is up there, Derrrr".

I love it. Even the Neanderthal can see what you are unable too. Poor willow - especially when the primitive is more enlightened than the so called progressive Aussie.

We were all living quite happily, By default without thinking there is somehow some r sole floating around in space who made us.

Because you were living back then ". . (Is that blind faith I am reading from you? )

It was you lot who decided to buck the status quo by believing something completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven and yet you somehow think that is the norm. You're off your fuc*ing nana and it may be the default position in a loony farm surrounded by high walls but certainly not out here in the real world.

Us lot? Gee you do have your knickers in a knot. You would prefer the default position your way - but you don't. I did not make the rules. But Ethang is correct- you don't believe in god because you don't believe in god. Why is it that think that you are allowed to have circular arguments and nobody is allowed too?
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 1:27:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
Willow responded:

In the words of one of the most thought-provoking intellectuals of our time, "The belief of God is and always has been ancillary to the way of thinking by man ever since some Neanderthal idiot living in a cave (or a mud hut) saw a bolt of lightning, Pointed upwards and declared in horror, "Like derrr, Somebody really big is up there, Derrrr".

I love it. Even the Neanderthal can see what you are unable too. Poor willow - especially when the primitive is more enlightened than the so called progressive Aussie.

We were all living quite happily, By default without thinking there is somehow some r sole floating around in space who made us.

Because you were living back then ". . (Is that blind faith I am reading from you? )

It was you lot who decided to buck the status quo by believing something completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven and yet you somehow think that is the norm. You're off your fuc*ing nana and it may be the default position in a loony farm surrounded by high walls but certainly not out here in the real world.

Us lot? Gee you do have your knickers in a knot. You would prefer the default position your way - but you don't. I did not make the rules. But Ethang is correct- you don't believe in god because you don't believe in god. Why is it that think that you are allowed to have circular arguments and nobody is allowed too?

Yeah well, Just like your imaginary friend, You are making things up again.
You did make up the rules of your stupid conclusion that somehow religion is a default position. I suppose you are going to say next that we are born religious by default. Come on, Say it. . . . Babies are born with their hands clasped looking up and wailing to God.

The sucked in: Derr, Ah, Us fellow loonies are going to make up this thing to explain why we got here coz we ain't got many brains to work out the truth.

The manipulators: I think we'll go with this one. All those dumb common suckers believe that crap so let's use it to control the world. When we have succeeded in convincing all those idiots that everyone thinks like they do, Its all in overdrive from there. They think that everybody, Including us believes all that shite and call it a default position to make them feel good about being puppets. Haw, Haw, Haw.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 3:01:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Tradesecret wrote:
Willow responded:

In the words of one of the most thought-provoking intellectuals of our time, "The belief of God is and always has been ancillary to the way of thinking by man ever since some Neanderthal idiot living in a cave (or a mud hut) saw a bolt of lightning, Pointed upwards and declared in horror, "Like derrr, Somebody really big is up there, Derrrr".

I love it. Even the Neanderthal can see what you are unable too. Poor willow - especially when the primitive is more enlightened than the so called progressive Aussie.

We were all living quite happily, By default without thinking there is somehow some r sole floating around in space who made us.

Because you were living back then ". . (Is that blind faith I am reading from you? )

It was you lot who decided to buck the status quo by believing something completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven and yet you somehow think that is the norm. You're off your fuc*ing nana and it may be the default position in a loony farm surrounded by high walls but certainly not out here in the real world.

Us lot? Gee you do have your knickers in a knot. You would prefer the default position your way - but you don't. I did not make the rules. But Ethang is correct- you don't believe in god because you don't believe in god. Why is it that think that you are allowed to have circular arguments and nobody is allowed too?

He doesn't believe theism is the status quo either, And therefore. . . . . . . . . It isn't. The belief that is like 90% of the world, But still isn't the default. Weird.

I wonder how something so completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven could have taken over the woatheistshe point it was almost 99% theists to 1% loser. . . . . Ahem. . . Scuse me, To 1% atheists. Imagine how much better it would have done if it wasn't so completely absurd, Contrived, Unfounded and unproven? ! Lol.

The world is still overwhelmingly theist, But willowed talks as if he doesn't know that. I wonder what world he lives in?

Whatever world it is, I'm sure there, Whatever he believes is true because, . . . . . . Well. . . . . Because he believes it.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 4:49:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Willows wrote:
We all know that when it comes down to it, The "Does God Exist" debate is very one-sided in that atheists have abundant evidence, Reason and logic in their favour yet, Theists have, Well, Let's face it, Nothing to justify their belief.

But wait! Shouldn't evidence be used to determine the right answer, Whichever way it goes?

A court of law, For example, Must use all the evidence available to determine a case.

It would be unthinkable for a judge to say, "Well, We have all the evidence for the prosecution but the defence doesn't have any yet. When the defence does come up with evidence I shall duly make my finding".

How long are we going to wait for the theist side of the argument to come up with evidence? Another 1700 years?

Or, Can we make a judgement now on the available evidence that we do have?

What happens when white trash (Tradesecret) meets a black nigger (Ethang5)? We get Christianity.
80% of Americans claim they are Christians. 80% of black negroids claim they are Christians. The two met and consolidated their faith in Christian slavery, African slavery and bible smuggling.
Ethang5 has been smuggling free bibles for over 15 years to Africans where 50% are illiterate. But because the bibles are free and cheaper than toilet paper. They are happy to use the free bibles as toilet paper.
Tradesecret's mommy is a bible smuggler. She successfully hides the bibles in her body cavities. For a fee she will show you were. For a higher free you can peek and poke her hiding places.
Tradesecret preaches from the bibles his mommy smuggles. The thought where all the bible has travelled and how it was preserved in mommy is a source of inspiration for Tradesecret.
You are right. It is time for theists to throw in the towel. The recycled bibles are no longer legible.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2019 7:26:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Is your spammer broken moron?

Lol. Or is it no longer hilarious to you anymore?

Seven days of Ethan being right, And hari being a pathetic liar. Seven days.

I predict it will be 2 weeks and the moron still would not have cited. She can't cite.

It will take a long time to find them.

It will take forever moron. You are a liar, They don't exist.

Lol. What a moron.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 3:33:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:

anonthesmallone wrote:
EThang5, Harikrish adds his stupid sarcastic remarks to my words, But he does not misquote me when he says "you wrote".

It is hilarious to watch nigger Ethang repeatedly deny he is a black negroid. Surely he sees his black nigger face in the mirror everyday. Lol. How about if he reads his confessions daily, Lol?

Nigger Ethang, You already confessed. Not once but over a period of several years on DDO. Now you want to litigate your confession.
(Nigger brags he was banned from more than a hundred forums. I exposed both his lies and the nigger behind his mask. Burn nigger burn. Lol! )

The nigger Ethang works and lives in Ghana Africa. He confessed he is African and posted dozens of disparaging comments about his country, People and culture. The only life the nigger knows is life in Ghana Africa.

Read nigger Ethang's confessions.
Ethang5 wrote: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America?
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children. (Pimping children are also illegal, Nigger)
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.
Ethang5 wrote: God's curses do not fail. Less than 30% of Africans ever saw slavery.
Ethang5 wrote: "I'm not a proud African. And if I were, I would not lie about Africa's achievements. "
Ethang5 wrote: I never said I was smart.
Ethang said: For His Majesty King Jesus? Full time slave here moron. Jesus has my all.
Ethang is a full time slave.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where the literacy rate is below 50%, And I see people do here, Exactly what this "test" is doing. Taking advantage of ignorance.
Ethang5 said: I live close to where Boko Haram operates. There are no Boko Harams in America.
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.

Ethang5 wrote: I think you're right. I live in Ghana, West Africa, And if you were to try the "God is evil" argument here people would simply think you were an obnoxious boob.

Ethang5 wrote: Long ago, I had a night job where I worked with this guy much like Im-Em here. He told me that reality was whatever he believed.

Ethang5 wrote: I currently live in a country with a society much closer to the 1st century than the society in which you live. I have seen people get burned alive in the street, And people a few blocks away never hear of it.

Ethang5 wrote: Having been kicked off more than a hundred forums, I understand your trepidation. But I don't think you have too much to worry about. The overwhelming majority of posters here would not want you banned or censured.

Ethang5 wrote:. I live among people like the Piraha. They have to work ALL DAY. Do you believe they are working only when hunting or gathering food? Do you think they have running water? Or electricity? They sleep often during the day because it is hot and they must work for everything. There are no stores, Only rudimentary tools. Please. Working only 15 hours a week would kill them, As evidenced by their dwindling tribe.

Ethang5 wrote: In Ghana where I live, The JW's are more aggressive. I always talk to them and let them know the many times when their organization made false prophesies about the end of the world.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Ghana, Some of what is custom here would be child abuse in America, Yet the Ghanaian parents aren't in jail.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Ghana, West Africa. If you think life is miserable, Come here and I will open your eyes. I will show you people who will infect you with their joy. Yet they aren't all Pollyannas. Some are cynics who have simply decided not to allow their environment to define them.

Ethang5 wrote: I have an electrified fence at my house. I had it put in. Is it wrong that I warn visitors to my home about it? If a visitor ignores my warning, Can he claim because I installed it, I'm responsible for his injury after having not believed my warning?
I work with prisoners. Many say they are Christian because the think it will facilitate their case with the parole board.

Ethang5 wrote: This is like when whites tell blacks, Why are you always on about racism? A black person's ethnicity is obvious.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children.

Your said your father was a black negroid atheist. But you turned out to be a black negroid slave delivering bibles for free whereas your position as an atheist was that religion was a crutch for the mentally weak. "

Karmic Justice combined with the curse of Ham and Slavery by Arabs produced Black shitholes.
Wow! Africans are cursed in 4 religions. Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism.

And here is what you do in Ghana Africa.

Ethang is a black negroid slave by his own confession.
Ethang5: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America?
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children.

Ethang is the perfect example of Africans following a slave religion.

1 Ethang5 wrote: I am a proud slave of His Royal Highness, King Jesus Christ.
Ethang is a proud slave.

2 Ethang said: For His Majesty King Jesus? Full time slave here moron. Jesus has my all.
Ethang is a full time slave.

3 Ethang said: Say it again, I want to lift His name so high, The world is blinded by His shine.
Ethang wants Jesus to shine his light on the black negroid slaves like him.

4 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. I have 3 children.
And Ethang runs Bibles as a full time slave for free.

5 Ethang5 said: Of course. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries.
Wow, Ethang worked for free as a full time slave.
This is why there is no Indian slavery. Indians would never work for free. That would be slavery! Or more accurately African slavery.

6 Ethang said: An indian dalit would know. The vile caste system never let's you out.
After you said: No sir. Hinduism has a sick caste system. India has outlawed it.
So the caste system has been outlawed in India. Sounds like another Indian success.

7 Ethang5 said: Right. I didn't sleep, I didn't shop, I didn't fly, Because I didn't mention those things. Can the class say idiot? I thought it could.
Slaves don't have any rights. Full time slaves like Ethang have even less rights.

8 Ethang said: Except shithole indians themselves. That's why India couldn't export them.
Which is why there were no Indian slavery. But Africans were exported to many parts of the world as slaves. Ethang should read African slavery under Arabs, America and Christian countries.

9 Ethang said: They didn't learn much in 14 centuries of slavery did they? Low IQ morons.
Ethang lives in Ghana Africa which was the centre of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
Ghana Africa exported 20 million African slaves throughout the world. Ironic comment from Ethang.

10 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.
Not only is slavery still practiced in Africa. You can buy a African slave for $400 in Libya.

Phenotypic Variations Between Blacks (Africans) and Non-Blacks(Others)

Blacks (Africans) have wide noses, Kinky hair, Black skin, High waist-to-hip ratios, Prognathic jaws, Long arms, And soulless, Vacant eyes. Everything about them is ugly.

Blacks (Africans) have the lowest IQ in the world
There you have it. If it looks, Smells, Behaves like a nigger. It is a nigger. Ethang5 you are a nigger.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 4:04:35 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Lol, You found your spammer. Too bad you still couldn't find your citation.

Seven days of Ethan being right, And hari being a pathetic liar. Seven days.

I predict it will be 2 weeks and the moron still would not have cited. She can't cite.

It will take a long time to find them.

It will take forever moron. You are a liar, They don't exist.

So all you can do is repeatedly post stupidity, Like a retard stuck on stupid. See what lying gets you?

Lol. What a moron.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 7:22:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:


Nigger, Those are your words in quotes. You already accepted and owned them.
It is hilarious to watch nigger Ethang repeatedly deny he is a black negroid. Surely he sees his black nigger face in the mirror everyday. Lol. How about if he reads his confessions daily, Lol?

Nigger Ethang, You already confessed. Not once but over a period of several years on DDO. Now you want to litigate your confession.
(Nigger brags he was banned from more than a hundred forums. I exposed both his lies and the nigger behind his mask. Burn nigger burn. Lol! )

The nigger Ethang works and lives in Ghana Africa. He confessed he is African and posted dozens of disparaging comments about his country, People and culture. The only life the nigger knows is life in Ghana Africa.

Read nigger Ethang's confessions.
Ethang5 wrote: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America?
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children. (Pimping children are also illegal, Nigger)
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.
Ethang5 wrote: God's curses do not fail. Less than 30% of Africans ever saw slavery.
Ethang5 wrote: "I'm not a proud African. And if I were, I would not lie about Africa's achievements. "
Ethang5 wrote: I never said I was smart.
Ethang said: For His Majesty King Jesus? Full time slave here moron. Jesus has my all.
Ethang is a full time slave.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where the literacy rate is below 50%, And I see people do here, Exactly what this "test" is doing. Taking advantage of ignorance.
Ethang5 said: I live close to where Boko Haram operates. There are no Boko Harams in America.
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.

Ethang5 wrote: I think you're right. I live in Ghana, West Africa, And if you were to try the "God is evil" argument here people would simply think you were an obnoxious boob.

Ethang5 wrote: Long ago, I had a night job where I worked with this guy much like Im-Em here. He told me that reality was whatever he believed.

Ethang5 wrote: I currently live in a country with a society much closer to the 1st century than the society in which you live. I have seen people get burned alive in the street, And people a few blocks away never hear of it.

Ethang5 wrote: Having been kicked off more than a hundred forums, I understand your trepidation. But I don't think you have too much to worry about. The overwhelming majority of posters here would not want you banned or censured.

Ethang5 wrote:. I live among people like the Piraha. They have to work ALL DAY. Do you believe they are working only when hunting or gathering food? Do you think they have running water? Or electricity? They sleep often during the day because it is hot and they must work for everything. There are no stores, Only rudimentary tools. Please. Working only 15 hours a week would kill them, As evidenced by their dwindling tribe.

Ethang5 wrote: In Ghana where I live, The JW's are more aggressive. I always talk to them and let them know the many times when their organization made false prophesies about the end of the world.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Ghana, Some of what is custom here would be child abuse in America, Yet the Ghanaian parents aren't in jail.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Ghana, West Africa. If you think life is miserable, Come here and I will open your eyes. I will show you people who will infect you with their joy. Yet they aren't all Pollyannas. Some are cynics who have simply decided not to allow their environment to define them.

Ethang5 wrote: I have an electrified fence at my house. I had it put in. Is it wrong that I warn visitors to my home about it? If a visitor ignores my warning, Can he claim because I installed it, I'm responsible for his injury after having not believed my warning?
I work with prisoners. Many say they are Christian because the think it will facilitate their case with the parole board.

Ethang5 wrote: This is like when whites tell blacks, Why are you always on about racism? A black person's ethnicity is obvious.

Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children.

Your said your father was a black negroid atheist. But you turned out to be a black negroid slave delivering bibles for free whereas your position as an atheist was that religion was a crutch for the mentally weak. "

Karmic Justice combined with the curse of Ham and Slavery by Arabs produced Black shitholes.
Wow! Africans are cursed in 4 religions. Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism.

And here is what you do in Ghana Africa.

Ethang is a black negroid slave by his own confession.
Ethang5: Lol. Of course I am African, Why do you keep talking about America?
Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries. I have 3 children.

Ethang is the perfect example of Africans following a slave religion.

1 Ethang5 wrote: I am a proud slave of His Royal Highness, King Jesus Christ.
Ethang is a proud slave.

2 Ethang said: For His Majesty King Jesus? Full time slave here moron. Jesus has my all.
Ethang is a full time slave.

3 Ethang said: Say it again, I want to lift His name so high, The world is blinded by His shine.
Ethang wants Jesus to shine his light on the black negroid slaves like him.

4 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where I run Bibles to countries which outlaw the possession of Bibles. I have 3 children.
And Ethang runs Bibles as a full time slave for free.

5 Ethang5 said: Of course. Been doing it for more than 15 years to many countries.
Wow, Ethang worked for free as a full time slave.
This is why there is no Indian slavery. Indians would never work for free. That would be slavery! Or more accurately African slavery.

6 Ethang said: An indian dalit would know. The vile caste system never let's you out.
After you said: No sir. Hinduism has a sick caste system. India has outlawed it.
So the caste system has been outlawed in India. Sounds like another Indian success.

7 Ethang5 said: Right. I didn't sleep, I didn't shop, I didn't fly, Because I didn't mention those things. Can the class say idiot? I thought it could.
Slaves don't have any rights. Full time slaves like Ethang have even less rights.

8 Ethang said: Except shithole indians themselves. That's why India couldn't export them.
Which is why there were no Indian slavery. But Africans were exported to many parts of the world as slaves. Ethang should read African slavery under Arabs, America and Christian countries.

9 Ethang said: They didn't learn much in 14 centuries of slavery did they? Low IQ morons.
Ethang lives in Ghana Africa which was the centre of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
Ghana Africa exported 20 million African slaves throughout the world. Ironic comment from Ethang.

10 Ethang5 wrote: I live in Africa where slavery is still practiced today.
Not only is slavery still practiced in Africa. You can buy a African slave for $400 in Libya.

Phenotypic Variations Between Blacks (Africans) and Non-Blacks(Others)

Blacks (Africans) have wide noses, Kinky hair, Black skin, High waist-to-hip ratios, Prognathic jaws, Long arms, And soulless, Vacant eyes. Everything about them is ugly.

Blacks (Africans) have the lowest IQ in the world
There you have it. If it looks, Smells, Behaves like a nigger. It is a nigger. Ethang5 you are a nigger.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 8:48:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Harikrish wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

Nigger, Those are your words in quotes.

How do we know idiot? When I quoted you, You did not accept the quote. Let me remind you moron.

You said Noah and all his sons were Africans. Here, Let me quote it again for you.

Noah and all his sons were Afrcans. - Gen 10

You are a nigger liar! I did not say Noah and all his sons were Africans. I said Ham and all his children were Africans.

See? You did not accept my quote of you. Why did you not accept it? Because I had not cited it.

So I went ahead and cited you. Thread title, Post number, And quote. After my citation, You could say nothing. You could no longer call me a liar. You were ashamed.

Now you want us to accept only your quote. Why? When a quote of yours was not enough for you when I quoted you.

I didn't need to lie further that you "accepted" anything, I simply cited you, And you had to stop lying.

Why can't you cite me now? Because you are lying. You want us to accept what you wouldn't accept yourself, An uncited quote.

The funny thing is, The quote you rejected and called a lie was actually true. We know this because I cited it.

The quote you're making now is a lie. We know this because, Unlike me, You cannot cite it. I reject it as your pathetic lie, Proven by your repetitive moron spam, Instead of you citing your claim.

Go ahead, Moron. Spam again. But you are the one who refused to accept an uncited quote. You are the one who had to accept the citation, And you are the one now who cannot cite her lie.

You are a pathetic liar.

Try again and see if your repeated spam will cover your lie.
Harikrish
Posts: 30,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 10:08:57 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
ethang5 wrote:
Harikrish wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

Nigger, Those are your words in quotes.

How do we know idiot? When I quoted you, You did not accept the quote. Let me remind you moron.

You said Noah and all his sons were Africans. Here, Let me quote it again for you.

Noah and all his sons were Afrcans. - Gen 10

You are a nigger liar! I did not say Noah and all his sons were Africans. I said Ham and all his children were Africans.

See? You did not accept my quote of you. Why did you not accept it? Because I had not cited it.

So I went ahead and cited you. Thread title, Post number, And quote. After my citation, You could say nothing. You could no longer call me a liar. You were ashamed.

In the example above you wanted to prove I was wrong so you produced what I had posted. And I accepted I made a typo error.
In the case of your words which I quoted verbatim. You haven't proven they are wrong by producing evidence that contradict what I had quoted. Those are the same words I have repeatedly quoted for over a year which you accepted and owned.
You even corrected me for calling you niggar by insisting I call you nigger.
So what is it that you are contesting when your profile says you live in Ghana Africa, You insist being called nigger and you have been running bibles from Ghana Africa for over 15 years?

Now you want us to accept only your quote. Why? When a quote of yours was not enough for you when I quoted you.

I didn't need to lie further that you "accepted" anything, I simply cited you, And you had to stop lying.

Why can't you cite me now? Because you are lying. You want us to accept what you wouldn't accept yourself, An uncited quote.

The funny thing is, The quote you rejected and called a lie was actually true. We know this because I cited it.

The quote you're making now is a lie. We know this because, Unlike me, You cannot cite it. I reject it as your pathetic lie, Proven by your repetitive moron spam, Instead of you citing your claim.

Go ahead, Moron. Spam again. But you are the one who refused to accept an uncited quote. You are the one who had to accept the citation, And you are the one now who cannot cite her lie.

I said it a few hundred times Ham's children were the first Africans. So when you claimed I said Noah's and his children were Africans. I questioned it because I had quoted Genesis 10 which made it obvious it was a typo.

You are a pathetic liar.
You are a low IQ lying nigger and just about everyone on DDO called you a liar.

Try again and see if your repeated spam will cover your lie.
If I quoted you wrong and you can prove it. I will accept the correction. But you have to explain why you accepted and owned your words which was quoted repeatedly for over a year?
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 11:17:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Harikrish wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

Nigger, Those are your words in quotes.

How do we know liar? When I quoted you, You did not accept the quote. Let me remind you moron.

You said Noah and all his sons were Africans. Here, Let me quote it again for you.

Noah and all his sons were Afrcans. - Gen 10

You are a nigger liar! I did not say Noah and all his sons were Africans. I said Ham and all his children were Africans.
See? You did not accept my quote of you. Why did you not accept it? Because I had not cited it.

So I went ahead and cited you. Thread title, Post number, And quote. After my citation, You could say nothing. You could no longer call me a liar. You were ashamed.

In the example above you wanted to prove I was wrong. . .

And you were wrong.

. . . So you produced what I had posted.

Just as you cannot do with me. You want to prove I am wrong, But you cannot produce what you say I posted. Why can't you?

And I accepted I made a typo error.

After I cited your comment you idiot. At first you called me a liar when I only posted your quote.

In the case of your words which I quoted verbatim.

How do we know moron? I quoted you verbatim too. You rejected the quote.

You haven't proven they are wrong by producing evidence that contradict what I had quoted.

Yes I have. My evidence is that you cannot cite it. You said you had not said Noah and his sons were black. I proved you a liar by showing you had said so. You were ashamed.

Now you have to show me wrong by showing that I confessed. Your fake quotes will not be accepted. Just as you refused to accept quotes of you only.

Those are the same words I have repeatedly quoted for over a year which you accepted and owned.

Then you should be able to cite the quote, Or show where I "accepted and owned" them. You cannot do that. You only lie. Posting a lie for a year doesn't make it truth. You are just a pathetic liar.

You rejected my quote, But want me to accept your quote. Hypocrite.

You even corrected me for calling you niggar by insisting I call you nigger.

You still cannot cite. And my pointing out your spelling ignorance is not accepting your stupidity. You are lying

So what is it that you are contesting when your profile says you live in Ghana Africa,

Anyone can live anywhere moron. I am insisting you support your lie, Cite my "confession".

You insist being called nigger and you have been running bibles from Ghana Africa for over 15 years?

Irrelevant to your lie. You want us to accept only your quote. Why? When a quote of yours was not enough for you when I quoted you.

I didn't need to lie further that you "accepted" anything, I simply cited you, And you had to stop lying. You were shamed.

Why can't you cite me now? Because you are lying. You want us to accept what you wouldn't accept yourself, An uncited quote. Hypocrite.

The funny thing is, The quote you rejected and called a lie was actually true. We know this because I cited it.

The quote you're making now is a lie. We know this because, Unlike me, You cannot cite it. I reject it as your pathetic lie, Proven by your repetitive moron spam, Instead of you citing your claim.

Go ahead, Moron. Spam again. But you are the one who refused to accept an uncited quote. You are the one who had to accept the citation, And you are the one now who cannot cite her lie.

I said it a few hundred times Ham's children were the first Africans.

You also said Noah and all his sons were black. And I cited where you did. That is why I called it a contradiction idiot.

So when you claimed I said Noah's and his children were Africans. I questioned it because I had quoted Genesis 10 which made it obvious it was a typo.

No liar. You didn't question, You called it a lie. But it was not a lie. . You had posted what I claimed. I told you repeatedly that you were contradicting yourself, So it was the fact that you had said both contradictory things that I called into question.

You are a pathetic liar. You said there was no contradiction and rejected my quote. When I cited you, You were ashamed. Had I not cited you, You would still be lying today. Just as you're lying now.

You are a low IQ lying nigger and just about everyone on DDO called you a liar.

Another lie will not hide your shame. Try again and see if your repeated spam will cover your lie. You cannot cite. Because you are lying.

If I quoted you wrong and you can prove it.

I have proven it. It is not in the archive. You said it was in the archive. You can't cite it because it is not in the archive. I have proven you a liar.

I will accept the correction.

Lol. And stop your thousands of repeated spam? What would you have to post if you don't post spam? You are a moron, So I know you will not accept correction. But I don't need you to accept anything. You cannot cite me. I cited you. You rejected it when I posted your quote. I reject your quote. I have proven you a pathetic liar.

But you have to explain why you accepted and owned your words which was quoted repeatedly for over a year?

No sir. It is just another lie that I "accepted and owned" your lies. You made the claim that my "confession" was in the archives. That is your claim, You have to support it. But you cannot, Because you are a miserable liar.

As I told you, No one can "accept and own" lies. If you are telling the truth, Why can't you cite me the way I cited you? Because you are an exposed liar.

You are a liar, And your repetitive spam proves it. Your inability to cite proves it. Go back to your spam moron, You have no case.

Lol. What a moron.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2019 11:18:54 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Harikrish wrote:
ethang5 wrote:

Nigger, Those are your words in quotes.

How do we know liar? When I quoted you, You did not accept the quote. Let me remind you moron.

You said Noah and all his sons were Africans. Here, Let me quote it again for you.

Noah and all his sons were Afrcans. - Gen 10

You are a nigger liar! I did not say Noah and all his sons were Africans. I said Ham and all his children were Africans.
See? You did not accept my quote of you. Why did you not accept it? Because I had not cited it.

So I went ahead and cited you. Thread title, Post number, And quote. After my citation, You could say nothing. You could no longer call me a liar. You were ashamed.

In the example above you wanted to prove I was wrong. . .

And you were wrong.

. . . So you produced what I had posted.

Just as you cannot do with me. You want to prove I am wrong, But you cannot produce what you say I posted. Why can't you?

And I accepted I made a typo error.

After I cited your comment you idiot. At first you called me a liar when I only posted your quote.

In the case of your words which I quoted verbatim.

How do we know moron? I quoted you verbatim too. You rejected the quote.

You haven't proven they are wrong by producing evidence that contradict what I had quoted.

Yes I have. My evidence is that you cannot cite it. You said you had not said Noah and his sons were black. I proved you a liar by showing you had said so. You were ashamed.

Now you have to show me wrong by showing that I confessed. Your fake quotes will not be accepted. Just as you refused to accept quotes of you only.

Those are the same words I have repeatedly quoted for over a year which you accepted and owned.

Then you should be able to cite the quote, Or show where I "accepted and owned" them. You cannot do that. You only lie. Posting a lie for a year doesn't make it truth. You are just a pathetic liar.

You rejected my quote, But want me to accept your quote. Hypocrite.

You even corrected me for calling you niggar by insisting I call you nigger.

You still cannot cite. And my pointing out your spelling ignorance is not accepting your stupidity. You are lying

So what is it that you are contesting when your profile says you live in Ghana Africa,

Anyone can live anywhere moron. I am insisting you support your lie, Cite my "confession".

You insist being called nigger and you have been running bibles from Ghana Africa for over 15 years?

Irrelevant to your lie. You want us to accept only your quote. Why? When a quote of yours was not enough for you when I quoted you.

I didn't need to lie further that you "accepted" anything, I simply cited you, And you had to stop lying. You were shamed.

Why can't you cite me now? Because you are lying. You want us to accept what you wouldn't accept yourself, An uncited quote. Hypocrite.

The funny thing is, The quote you rejected and called a lie was actually true. We know this because I cited it.

The quote you're making now is a lie. We know this because, Unlike me, You cannot cite it. I reject it as your pathetic lie, Proven by your repetitive moron spam, Instead of you citing your claim.

Go ahead, Moron. Spam again. But you are the one who refused to accept an uncited quote. You are the one who had to accept the citation, And you are the one now who cannot cite her lie.

I said it a few hundred times Ham's children were the first Africans.

You also said Noah and all his sons were black. And I cited where you did. That is why I called it a contradiction idiot.

So when you claimed I said Noah's and his children were Africans. I questioned it because I had quoted Genesis 10 which made it obvious it was a typo.

No liar. You didn't question, You called it a lie. But it was not a lie. . You had posted what I claimed. I told you repeatedly that you were contradicting yourself, So it was the fact that you had said both contradictory things that I called into question.

You are a pathetic liar. You said there was no contradiction and rejected my quote. When I cited you, You were ashamed. Had I not cited you, You would still be lying today. Just as you're lying now.

You are a low IQ lying nigger and just about everyone on DDO called you a liar.

Another lie will not hide your shame. Try again and see if your repeated spam will cover your lie. You cannot cite. Because you are lying.

If I quoted you wrong and you can prove it.

I have proven it. It is not in the archive. You said it was in the archive. You can't cite it because it is not in the archive. I have proven you a liar.

I will accept the correction.

Lol. And stop your thousands of repeated spam? What would you have to post if you don't post spam? You are a moron, So I know you will not accept correction. But I don't need you to accept anything. You cannot cite me. I cited you. You rejected it when I posted your quote. I reject your quote. I have proven you a pathetic liar.

But you have to explain why you accepted and owned your words which was quoted repeatedly for over a year?

No sir. It is just another lie that I "accepted and owned" your lies. You made the claim that my "confession" was in the archives. That is your claim, You have to support it. But you cannot, Because you are a miserable liar.

As I told you, No one can "accept and own" lies. If you are telling the truth, Why can't you cite me the way I cited you? Because you are an exposed liar.

You are a liar, And your repetitive spam proves it. Your inability to cite proves it. Go back to your spam moron, You have no case.

Lol. What a moron.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.