Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

by Greatest I am Mon May 18, 2015 11:38 pm

Why does God not follow the Golden Rule? His best rule?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-nHw0_Fos&feature=player_embedded

I have a hard time seeing God as --- doing unto others as he would want done to himself --- in the clip above. I cannot see God wanting someone to do what he did to the women who owned those wombs to him. He is therefore certainly not walking his talk or following his own good advice.

It seems that people are more responsible than God, as we are trying to get everyone on board the Golden Rule that God ignores.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 12:34 pm

Prima facie I'd say because no God exists, as they're all fictions created by humans to answer questions where no explanation existed at that time, to exert power and influence over others with impunity, and of course as Snowyflake always points out to assuage our fears over our own mortality and the mortality of those they love.

by Greatest I am Tue May 19, 2015 4:42 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Prima facie I'd say because no God exists, as they're all fictions created by humans to answer questions where no explanation existed at that time, to exert power and influence over others with impunity, and of course as Snowyflake always points out to assuage our fears over our own mortality and the mortality of those they love.

Stated as a logical fallacy, as we have no evidence of God's non-existence, but I have no argument against this.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 7:56 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Prima facie I'd say because no God exists, as they're all fictions created by humans to answer questions where no explanation existed at that time, to exert power and influence over others with impunity, and of course as Snowyflake always points out to assuage our fears over our own mortality and the mortality of those they love.

Stated as a logical fallacy, as we have no evidence of God's non-existence, but I have no argument against this.

Regards
DL

How can you have evidence for non-existence? That's something of a contradiction, we don't show evidence that unicorns or mermaids "DON'T" exist.

by Greatest I am Tue May 19, 2015 8:57 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:

Stated as a logical fallacy, as we have no evidence of God's non-existence, but I have no argument against this.

Regards
DL

How can you have evidence for non-existence? That's something of a contradiction, we don't show evidence that unicorns or mermaids "DON'T" exist.

You cannot. That is why to say there is no God is said without you having evidence and that is why your phrasing is a logical fallacy.

We can prove a positive in this case but not a negative.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 19, 2015 10:03 pm

You've lost me I'm afraid, are you saying rejecting the existence of a unicorn is a logical fallacy? If so on what grounds? If not why is this different from rejecting the existence of a deity because there is no evidence to support it?

by Greatest I am Tue May 19, 2015 10:21 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You've lost me I'm afraid, are you saying rejecting the existence of a unicorn is a logical fallacy? If so on what grounds? If not why is this different from rejecting the existence of a deity because there is no evidence to support it?

Can you swear, so to speak, that there is no God without you having looked at every part of the universe?

No you cannot.

Theists will not believe you because of that fact just as we do not believe theists who say there is a God without producing the evidence of his reality.

Nether of you have evidence and that makes both claims logical fallacies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyA8cIzosFU

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 10:24 am

Greatest I am wrote:Can you swear, so to speak, that there is no God without you having looked at every part of the universe?

No you cannot.

Theists reject the same number of deities existence as I do with just one single exception. Are you saying they have absolute proof none of these exist? If so I'd appreciate that proof along with the identity of the real deity.

Precisely the same argument could be applied to Zeus or Apollo or Baal, or to mermaids come to that if you understand the philisophical limits of epistemology. Again I ask do you believe mermaids exist?

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 2:22 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Can you swear, so to speak, that there is no God without you having looked at every part of the universe?

No you cannot.

Theists reject the same number of deities existence as I do with just one single exception. Are you saying they have absolute proof none of these exist? If so I'd appreciate that proof along with the identity of the real deity.

Precisely the same argument could be applied to Zeus or Apollo or Baal, or to mermaids come to that if you understand the philisophical limits of epistemology. Again I ask do you believe mermaids exist?

No.

But for me to state that mermaids do not exist without having the necessary proof would not be accurate and would be a logical fallacy.

Just like it is a logical fallacy for theists to say that God exists without showing the proof or for you to say God does not exist without your proof.

Think of yourself in a court of law.

You can certainly say that you believe that no God exists and that would pass but to say God does not exist would not be acceptable to a judge.

That is likely why the atheist signs on the busses said God probably does not exist. That is not a logical fallacy.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 2:55 pm

Greatest I am,
Will you please tell me exactly which Golden Rule you mean.
As I recall, everything God told man to do for his well being was for mankind's own good and nothing more.
regards.

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 3:13 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
Will you please tell me exactly which Golden Rule you mean.
As I recall, everything God told man to do for his well being was for mankind's own good and nothing more.
regards.

There are a number of ways to state the Golden Rule. Pick you favorite.

The point is that God does not follow it.

As to man's own good, have you read the ten commandments?

Are God's first 3 commandment for man's good or for God's aggrandisement?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 3:18 pm

Greatest I am,

I can only see that God is informing his people that he is the only God and others may come along and be pretenders as has actually been the case, I can see nothing sinister in God informing his followers of the facts that will enable them to confront the future.

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 3:21 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,

I can only see that God is informing his people that he is the only God and others may come along and be pretenders as has actually been the case, I can see nothing sinister in God informing his followers of the facts that will enable them to confront the future.

So those are just information and you do not have to follow those commandments. Right?

Why would we need that information though?

Would God not stand a lot taller and more identifiable than some other God or are the other Gods that close to looking the same?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 3:39 pm

Greatest I am,
So far as I am concerned there are no other Gods, they are false, as Gods said they would be.

regards.

by polyglide Wed May 20, 2015 3:41 pm

Greatest I am,
I have to go but look forward to exchanging views in a proper manner, it makes a very welcome change.

regards.

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 3:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
So far as I am concerned there are no other Gods, they are false, as Gods said they would be.

regards.

Then your God is a liar. Ok.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 3:49 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
I have to go but look forward to exchanging views in a proper manner, it makes a very welcome change.

regards.

I too look forward to seeing where else you see your God lying in scriptures.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 7:46 pm

[/quote]Again I ask do you believe mermaids exist?[/quote]

GIA wrote:No. But for me to state that mermaids do not exist without having the necessary proof would not be accurate and would be a logical fallacy.

You started that sentence by saying precisely that, unless your saying you believe it to be true but are not allowed to say so, which is bizarre.

GIA wrote:Just like it is a logical fallacy for theists to say that God exists without showing the proof or for you to say God does not exist without your proof.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Hitchens's razor is actually a translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, but Hitchens's English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known in the 21st century. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics.

FYI I have never claimed to possess absolute proof of or absolute certainty about anything, as I am already aware that this is epistemologically impossible, so I'm not sure why you keep assigning this claim to me, or to atheism as neither claim is true. I think Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus are as likely to exist as omnipotent deities as are Thor, Zeus, Baal, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, mermaids or unicorns, hope this helps.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 7:50 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am, Will you please tell me exactly which Golden Rule you mean. As I recall, everything God told man to do for his well being was for mankind's own good and nothing more. regards.

You've claimed this before and several posters pointed out to the genocide, infant sacrifice, rapine and torture to name a few in the old testament that god commanded that are demonstrably not good for anyone. You sulked and claimed then to not be interested in that half of your bible, not a very compelling response to be honest. Then there are the teachings of Jesus that advocate slavery and adherence to old testament law, as I recall you offered no credible answer there either.

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 8:23 pm

Again I ask do you believe mermaids exist?[/quote]

GIA wrote:No. But for me to state that mermaids do not exist without having the necessary proof would not be accurate and would be a logical fallacy.

You started that sentence by saying precisely that, unless your saying you believe it to be true but are not allowed to say so, which is bizarre.

GIA wrote:Just like it is a logical fallacy for theists to say that God exists without showing the proof or for you to say God does not exist without your proof.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Hitchens's razor is actually a translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, but Hitchens's English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known in the 21st century. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics.

FYI I have never claimed to possess absolute proof of or absolute certainty about anything, as I am already aware that this is epistemologically impossible, so I'm not sure why you keep assigning this claim to me, or to atheism as neither claim is true. I think Allah, Yahweh, and Jesus are as likely to exist as omnipotent deities as are Thor, Zeus, Baal, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, mermaids or unicorns, hope this helps.[/quote]

You asked if I believed that mermaids existed.

I stated my belief with a no. That statement is not a logical fallacy as it shows my belief. My belief may or may not reflect reality.

If I stated that mermaids did not exist then this ---"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --- would come into play.

You can say that you believe whatever you believe all you like and I will not call you out on your belief as a logical fallacy.

Say it as a truth and not just what you believe and I will call you out on it.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 20, 2015 8:55 pm

GIA wrote:I stated my belief with a no. That statement is not a logical fallacy as it shows my belief. My belief may or may not reflect reality.

Really? Personally my rejection of the idea that mermaids exists is based solely on the lack of any compelling evidence, I have no personal beliefs one way or the other, just as with my rejection of theism. I've never understood why anyone would base a belief on anything other than reality. I have no faith based beliefs, and base what I accept as true or valid on the evidence or lack thereof, this is an old theistic trick of trying to reverse the burden of proof, it's a well known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Atheism doesn't make claim that god doesn't exist, it rejects the claim that a deity does exist, what individuals want to assert personally after that is their business, and for the record as you seem to be ignoring me I have never claimed absolute proof for anything, atheism and agnosticism need not be mutually exclusive.

by Greatest I am Wed May 20, 2015 9:36 pm

??

Ignore you?

Who have I been chatting with? Do you have a twin here?

That aside. Seems that except for slight semantics, we are on the same page.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu May 21, 2015 11:19 pm

Greatest I am wrote: Ignore you? Who have I been chatting with? Do you have a twin here?
DL

My apologies that was worded badly as I was in a hurry, I meant you had repeated the claim that I was using a logical fallacy by claiming to be certain god didn't exist, when I had already stated that I have never and do not claim absolute certainty about anything as this is epistemologically impossible.

To recap I think the likelihood that Allah, Yahweh, or Jesus exist as deities is as likely as Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Baal, mermaids or unicorns existing.

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Professor Richard Dawkins actually made a very reasonable summation of this in The God Delusion

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I'd agree that I am somewhere between 6 and 7, probably close to 7 than 6, just as RD later corrected his own position to be.

by Greatest I am Fri May 22, 2015 3:51 pm

That is good work.

My apotheosis makes me a 6.

I have 0 faith.

Faith without facts is for fools. I do hope there is one. But not for the type of vile God that Christianity and Islam are trying to peddle.

The God I hope for is a good God and not the demiurge of the Abrahamic cults.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 22, 2015 7:11 pm

Greatest I am wrote:That is good work.

My apotheosis makes me a 6.

I have 0 faith.

Faith without facts is for fools. I do hope there is one. But not for the type of vile God that Christianity and Islam are trying to peddle.

The God I hope for is a good God and not the demiurge of the Abrahamic cults.

Regards
DL

Given the world we see I sincerely hope it's not the result of design. Luckily there is no evidence that this is the case, and the claims that religions humans have created are based on have all too often and all too easily been disproved by a little scientific rigour.

by Greatest I am Fri May 22, 2015 8:27 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:That is good work.

My apotheosis makes me a 6.

I have 0 faith.

Faith without facts is for fools. I do hope there is one. But not for the type of vile God that Christianity and Islam are trying to peddle.

The God I hope for is a good God and not the demiurge of the Abrahamic cults.

Regards
DL

Given the world we see I sincerely hope it's not the result of design. Luckily there is no evidence that this is the case, and the claims that religions humans have created are based on have all too often and all too easily been disproved by a little scientific rigour.

No argument.

I track certain markers for evil and they are all about the best that we have ever enjoyed world wide. Poverty, violent death of all kinds, slavery, those types of things. All doing well even though I am sure we would like to have them do even better.

Except perhaps our environment, I do you see anything getting worse over time. Do you?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Tue May 26, 2015 11:18 am

Greatest I am,
The design of the original world is a wonderful example of intelligence, aforethought and a love of all that the natural world offers [natural in this case meaning that which we behold]

Because mankind has distorted and abused it does not in any way make the original anything other than an ideal and perfect habitat for mankind, animal life and plant life.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 26, 2015 12:08 pm

There is no evidence that the world is designed. What's more the creation myths of contemporary religions are demonstrably wrong in almost every major claim, from 6 day creations to the chronology of the formation of the universe.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 26, 2015 1:08 pm

it is only the scientist with a sense of wonder who feels that life's awesome complexity needs explaining, who will propose refutable and testable scientific hypothesis, who will try to unravel the so called mysteries of the universe. The religious man will content himself with the uninteresting remark that "it" was all created by God.

Feurbach.

by Greatest I am Tue May 26, 2015 4:25 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
The design of the original world is a wonderful example of intelligence, aforethought and a love of all that the natural world offers [natural in this case meaning that which we behold]

Because mankind has distorted and abused it does not in any way make the original anything other than an ideal and perfect habitat for mankind, animal life and plant life.

I will give you that it does look to some extent designed but if there was a designer, it was nature and chance.

To think that a designer would design some of what nature has created that plagues mankind though is to believe in a God who is a real immoral prick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo&feature=em-hot

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue May 26, 2015 7:38 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
The design of the original world is a wonderful example of intelligence, aforethought and a love of all that the natural world offers [natural in this case meaning that which we behold]

Because mankind has distorted and abused it does not in any way make the original anything other than an ideal and perfect habitat for mankind, animal life and plant life.

I will give you that it does look to some extent designed but if there was a designer, it was nature and chance.

To think that a designer would design some of what nature has created that plagues mankind though is to believe in a God who is a real immoral prick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo&feature=em-hot

Regards
DL

Good point, not for nothing have theologians struggled with theodicy for thousands of years. The problem is that when someone is wilfully blinkered and refuses to acknowledge reality, as Polyglide does in his posts, then they simply create layer after layer of delusional claims to help them try and ignore the logical paradoxes in their core beliefs. It's a little sad but to a certain extent we all create complex delusions to protect us from reality, it's just that usually they're more subtle than a magic all powerful ghost borrowed from a bronze age superstition.

by Greatest I am Wed May 27, 2015 2:13 pm

+ 1

I see us as either in the reality you and I perceive or in what has been called a matrix type of reality.

If the matrix is a truth then whatever consciousness created it is undetectable, and really, if such advanced minds have nothing better to do than to play mind games with us as their puppets, which is what we would be, then they are to be pitied.

They would have lost any reason for living.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Fri May 29, 2015 2:00 pm

Greatest I am,
I have considered the odds, calculated by those who are qualified in doing so, of plant and animal life comming about by chance, they are such that the human mind is incapable of grasping the significance, just as they cannot grasp the extent of the universe etc;

This is not a contradiction in terms, it is a fact.

The only alternative is evolution which poses more problems than it answers regarding the origin of life.

The fact is there are animals and there are plants and they both have been created by one means or another and in trying to determine how I agree there are disputable points in every suggestion.

For Christians faith is the main ingrediant.

by Greatest I am Fri May 29, 2015 3:26 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
I have considered the odds, calculated by those who are qualified in doing so, of plant and animal life comming about by chance, they are such that the human mind is incapable of grasping the significance, just as they cannot grasp the extent of the universe etc;

This is not a contradiction in terms, it is a fact.

The only alternative is evolution which poses more problems than it answers regarding the origin of life.

The fact is there are animals and there are plants and they both have been created by one means or another and in trying to determine how I agree there are disputable points in every suggestion.

For Christians faith is the main ingrediant.

"It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" – which is, "god of the blind."

Be your God a creator or not does not answer the question of why you would follow a God with satanic morals.

If your are not going to base your beliefs and God on morality, then you consign your soul to hell.

Your God is demonstrably a vile God and following his morals shows us all what you have in your heart.

I do not have the words to break your brainwashed conditioning but perhaps these gents do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

If you cannot see what your God truly is then Satan already has your soul.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri May 29, 2015 6:33 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am, I have considered the odds,

No you haven't considered the odds, that's a lie, and when you were asked what those adds are you couldn't say, and claimed they were "incalculable", so a doubly stupid lie.

Polyglide wrote:calculated by those who are qualified in doing so,

Maybe you can name them then as every time you claim this you are asked to do so and cannot, strange that, almost as if you've simply made it up.

Polyglide wrote:of plant and animal life comming about by chance,

This is one of your favourite lies, and again as with every other time you've used it, it's nonsense to claim that there are only two "mutually exclusive" choices, namely chance or a bronze age superstition about magic. Nor has anyone claimed life came about purely by chance, if you really knew anything about science you'd not keep repeating this clumsy lie. Oh and for the umpteenth time there is only one m in coming.

Polyglide wrote:they are such that the human mind is incapable of grasping the significance, just as they cannot grasp the extent of the universe etc;

So your basing your claim on something you can't grasp, priceless. Humans can and do grasp the extent of the universe as well, an entire branch of science studies precisely this, you're really outdoing yourself here.

Polyglide wrote:The only alternative is evolution which poses more problems than it answers regarding the origin of life.

Evolution does not, and has never, made any claims about the origins of life. So this imbecilic lie speaks for itself, AGAIN. Do you really think repeating such an idiotic lie will suddenly fool someone?

Polyglide wrote:The fact is there are animals and there are plants and they both have been created by one means or another

It is absolutely not a fact that life was created, that's just a claim and you have zero evidence for it. It is however worth noting that the creation myth in your superstition of choice makes demonstrably false claims. It also borrows aspects from earlier superstitions.

Polyglide wrote: For Christians faith is the main ingrediant.

Why do you need faith? You have claimed to be 100% certain of your beliefs, you've also posted here that your beliefs are facts. Do you understand what faith means? Also ingredient has no a in it.

by polyglide Sat May 30, 2015 11:06 am

DR, Sheldon,
I have just heard of Stu's situation and I have no desire at the moment to reply to your rubbish,

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 2:02 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
I have just heard of Stu's situation and I have no desire at the moment to reply to your rubbish,

I realise from your posts that you have no scruples, honesty or integrity, and your posts show just how spiteful and petty you get when anyone questions your ridiculous claims, but how dare you make such a pathetic claim, you made it clear many weeks ago that you haven't the intellect or integrity for honest discussion and having hurled repeated and childish insults at me stated plainly you'd not be responding to me again. Yet you proceeded to do so with the pretence it was others you were responding to. So this appalling lie, and attempt to use stu's illness, which you already knew about as well, as he had told you weeks ago on here for everyone to see, just shows the depths you'll sink to in an attempt to point score rather than take part in proper discussion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 30, 2015 2:37 pm

Here is the post from two weeks ago when Stu first pointed out he was ill to you Polyglide:

Re: Telling lies for God
Post by stuart torr on Fri May 15, 2015 5:23 pm

Polyglide please leave me alone so that I can suffer with my cancer in peace, many thanks.

It's in the telling lies for God thread and here is a link to the page it is on:
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1067p200-telling-lies-for-god

and here is your response FROM THE SAME DAY:

Re: Telling lies for God
Post by polyglide on Fri May 15, 2015 5:37 pm

Stu,
Sorry about the illness problem, I have had first hand experience of seeing how hard it can be and I will pray for relief for yourself.

That sunshine, exposes this post of yours FROM TODAY as a despicable lie:

Post by polyglide Today at 12:06 pm

DR, Sheldon,
I have just heard of Stu's situation and I have no desire at the moment to reply to your rubbish,

by polyglide Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:44 pm

DR, Sheldon,
I understood that Stu was no longer going to post, I cannot help but keep his chin up by showing what a first class idiot you are.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:07 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
I understood that Stu was no longer going to post, I cannot help but keep his chin up by showing what a first class idiot you are.

Stu and I have been friends for quite some time, and he's a genuinely nice guy. He does not share your beliefs at all, and is as much an atheist as I am. So it's hilarious you think you're besting me here, and equally hilarious you think stu shares your delusion. However that's not what you said, you claimed you "had just heard of stu's situation." You lied as my quotes above show, and you used stu's illness as an excuse to take a swipe at me, to avoid answering my post. The fact that you now resort to childish insults rather than show some integrity and admit it is no surprise. Your petty childish insult speak for itself as well, as they always do, and again I'm more than happy for anyone to read the posts here and make their own mind up about where your claim really belongs. Especially as you dole out the same childish ad hominem to everyone who rejects your beliefs, including I might add stu and Shirina, both of whom you later posted sickeningly hypocritical and self righteous condolences to in a show of false pious humility. Keep it up chum, and I'll dig up the posts where you called them stupid as well. You really are something else, and this has been a very edifying glimpse into the "moral" ascendancy that religion provides.

by Sponsored content