Search results

My guess is all of "his" wealth is "his" wealth by some or other socialist redistribution program.

If you weren't a God-hating fool, God-hating fools would be saying that about you, too. You shouldn't be angry at me for the fact that you have been cornered into demonstrating how worthless and indefensible your atheist stupidity, your atheismspeak, is.

If you did not agree with what I wrote, then you did not agree with what I meant to write, since what I wrote is what I meant to write. Duh.

Every thing and every person that has been X, had been X. Every thing and every person that had been X, has been X. You gain absolutely nothing by your bizarre, futile ploy of begging "had" for help against "has". It does not help you at all; it does not make your anti-logic proceedings...

@rstrats: <NO ANSWER> @rstrats: <NO ANSWER> @rstrats: <NO ANSWER> @rstrats: <NO ANSWER> You can't deal rationally with these questions, because you use your word "exists" meaninglessly. Asking you questions you can't answer about your use of certain words you choose to use? Of course...

It's not my fault that you choose to use your word, "exist", meaninglessly, and that you thus cannot respond rationally to the questions I ask you about your use of it. You've got nothing. Just think about it: your whole, worthless shtick as an atheist rests on your cognitively meaningless...

What (if anything) do you mean by your word, "exists"? When you say "X exists," are you saying that X is doing something? If so, then what are you saying X is doing? Could you answer that question sans using "exists"?

VS 1) Do you agree with what I wrote, or 2) Is what I wrote not comprehendable to you? Which is it? It ain't both.

LOL @ the stupidity of saying you will reword that which you say you are unable to comprehend. Can you comprehend this: "aehf huh tfghhioojgf"? Please reword "aehf huh tfghhioojgf" so it is comprehendable!🤣

Do what you will in the whitespace body of your posts, but remember that if I see you continuing your use of the function to misquote what I have written, I'll not hesitate to flag your fouls, to bring them to the attention of the TOL moderators.

Here is what I wrote, and what you have once again told me you agree with: You "used better English" to do what, exactly?

Yet you also contradict it by saying: Why do you so hate logic?

Would you like me to start quote-mangling against you, as you've been doing against me, and are here threatening to continue doing against me? Too bad, Satan-seed; not gonna happen.

Here, you are admitting that you're not in this thread to respond to what others have written, but to instead carry on with yourself. Question: Why would you use the function to address your post to me, quoting something I had written, and pretend (by saying "yes") to agree with what I had...

Do you think he might actually be Tony Randall?

Without belief of what proposition? To what proposition are you referring by your phrase, "in a supreme being"? Every belief, without exception, is belief of some proposition, whether a true proposition (a truth) or a false proposition (a falsehood). Do you just mean what am I referring to by...

What do you mean by your word, "atheist"?

You've been warned. Better not continue your practice of quote-mangling.

It was your mindless reaction. Duh. LOL

I had stated: To which you responded: That's you signifying your agreement with what I had stated; that's you agreeing with the fact that, according to your vicious heresy, a new creature has been a sinner. Don't respond with a "yes" to the fact I have stated if you don't agree with the fact I...