Display posts from previous
Sort by

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

342 by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Linus Van Pelt wrote:You know what God commands?
I know what is written about him, which is all that anyone knows about God.

Nobody knows anything about God. I thought you knew that.
A theist expresses full belief in a deity.

Noun 1. theist - one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

Don't you mean "one who fully believes in the existence of a god or gods"?
Why do you make it so scary to post here.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

344 by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Linus Van Pelt wrote:
Rick Reuben wrote:
Linus Van Pelt wrote:You know what God commands?
I know what is written about him, which is all that anyone knows about God.

Nobody knows anything about God. I thought you knew that.

Wow, your reading skills get worse and worse. I said that:

I

knew

what

has

been

written

about

him.


right, but then you did actually say:
which

is

all

that

anyone

knows

about

God.

Which I took to mean, for some wacky reason, that you think that what we know about God is what has been written about him. This doesn't make any sense in light of the fact that what we know about God is nothing. You are slipping, and you're right to be embarrassed. You're not right to take your embarrassment out on me, but no one can be surprised by that.
Did I need to spell it for you, to make you recognize that I was obviously referring to what humans had written about God??

Obviously that's what you meant. Which is why it was so strange, that you seem to think that knowledge of god can come from human writings.

Get some sleep, kid.
Why do you make it so scary to post here.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

346 by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
Linus Van Pelt wrote:Do you mean all the shit you say?
Did you mean it when you thought 9/11 was organized by al Qaeda and when you thought that the Fed was controlled by the US government?

I guess I'll put you down for "a little from column A, and a little from column B."

EDIT: No reason to derail this thread. If you want to ask me about some dumb bullshit, you've got threads for that.

You may assume that, other than sarcasm or jest, I have meant everything I've written here at the time I wrote it. I can't promise that, in 3+ years, some opinions haven't changed, but if you have to choose between telling yourself I'm stupid and dishonest, tell yourself I'm stupid. You may not assume, however, that I mean everything you think I've written that I haven't written. And when I say "you may not assume," I mean "you probably will assume."
Why do you make it so scary to post here.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

347 by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:Wacky is right. You managed twice to overlook the fact that I was speaking about the Word Of Man.

The only reason people have any formed opinions about what God might be are because they have had these stories imprinted on their minds. None of us *know* what God looks like either, but 98% of us in western societies see a big white bearded guy if we envision God in our minds, and if you tell me you don't, you're lying again.

God is what has been written and told about him.


:lol: Amazing!

Linus van Pelt wrote:you're right to be embarrassed


Are there any more stupid tangents you want to pursue tonight, or do you want to answer something real, like the question about why so many atheists think their atheism gives them a license to express bigotry against their fellow man?

How am I supposed to know what motivates people who live only in your mind?
Why do you make it so scary to post here.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

348 by Linus Van Pelt_Archive
Linus van Pelt wrote:No reason to derail this thread.

I can see why you'd want to change the subject, though.
Linus van Pelt wrote:you're right to be embarrassed


Oh right, and
Linus van Pelt wrote:You may not assume, however, that I mean everything you think I've written that I haven't written. And when I say "you may not assume," I mean "you probably will assume."
Why do you make it so scary to post here.

Richard Dawkins Accepts Possibility Of Intelligent Design

349 by syntaxfree07_Archive
Rick Reuben wrote:
N. M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England
__________________|___________________
| |
| J. Henry Schroder
| Banking |Corp.
| |
Brown, Shipley - Morgan Grenfell - Lazard - |
& Company & Company Brothers |
| | | |
--------------------| -------| | |
| | | | | |
Alex Brown - Brown Bros. - Lord Mantagu - Morgan et Cie -- Lazard ---|
& Son | Harriman Norman | Paris Bros |
| | / | N.Y. |
| | | | | |
| Governor, Bank | J.P. Morgan Co -- Lazard ---|
| of England / N.Y. Morgan Freres |
| 1924-1938 / Guaranty Co. Paris |
| / Morgan Stanley Co. | /
| / | \Schroder Bank
| / |
Hamburg/Berlin
| / Drexel & Company /
| / Philadelphia /
| / /
| / Lord Airlie
| / /
| / M. M. Warburg Chmn J. Henry Schroder
| | Hamburg --------- marr. Virginia F. Ryan
| | | grand-daughter of Otto
| | | Kahn of Kuhn Loeb Co.
| | |
| | |
Lehman Brothers N.Y. --------------- Kuhn Loeb Co. N. Y.
| | ------------------------
| | | |
| | | |
Lehman Brothers - Mont. Alabama Solomon Loeb Abraham Kuhn
| | __|______________________|_________
Lehman-Stern, New Orleans Jacob Schiff/Theresa Loeb Nina Loeb/Paul Warburg
------------------------- | | |
| | Mortimer Schiff James Paul Warburg
_____________|_______________/ |
| | | | |
Mayer Lehman | Emmanuel Lehman \
| | | \
Herbert Lehman Irving Lehman \
| | | \
Arthur Lehman \ Phillip Lehman John Schiff/Edith Brevoort Baker
/ | Present Chairman Lehman Bros
/ Robert Owen Lehman Kuhn Loeb - Granddaughter of
/ | George F. Baker
| / |
| / |
| / Lehman Bros Kuhn Loeb (1980)
| / |
| / Thomas Fortune Ryan
| | |
| | |
Federal Reserve Bank Of New York |
| | |
______National City Bank N. Y. |
| | |
| National Bank of Commerce N.Y. --|
| | \
| Hanover National Bank N.Y. \
| | \
| Chase National Bank N.Y. \
| |
| |
Shareholders - National City Bank - N.Y. |
-------------------------------------------|
| /
James Stillman /
Elsie m. William Rockefeller /
Isabel m. Percy Rockefeller /
William Rockefeller Shareholders - National Bank of Commerce N. Y.
J. P. Morgan
-----------------------------------------------
M.T. Pyne Equitable Life - J.P. Morgan
Percy Pyne Mutual Life - J.P. Morgan
J. W. Sterling H. P. Davison - J. P. Morgan
NY Trust/NY Edison Mary W. Harriman
Shearman & Sterling A.D. Jiullard - North British Merc. Ins.
| Jacob Schiff
| Thomas F. Ryan
| Paul Warburg
| Levi P. Morton - Guaranty Trust
| J. P. Morgan
|
|
Shareholders - First National Bank of N.Y.
- -------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan
George F. Baker
George F. Baker Jr.
Edith Brevoort Baker
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Hanover National Bank N.Y.
- ------------------------------------------
James Stillman
William Rockefeller
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Chase National Bank N.Y.


If you turn your monitor on its side and look at this. It's the New York City skyline. These figures are from 1998. You know what is missing? The towers!

Try to deny that.

But in all seriousness-- I understand why you sympathize with Christians. You are even more full of it than they are.

You are just a contrary bullshit-peddler trying to find a way to make intellectualism exciting and edgy. In the process-- any semblance of intellectualism is lost.

PS: The last two or three times I have argued with you, you have insisted that I slipped up and worded something incorrectly. I said exactly what I wanted to say to you. Please don't do that again. I understand that logic and rationalism are difficult concepts for you to bear, but that doesn't mean you have to reconstruct an argument that is easier for you to contend with... again.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests