Re: Facts are facts in religioworld.

Skeeter wrote:
 

In article <l7aglhFtt8eU1@mid.individual.net>,
gladiator@colosseum.rome says...

>
Ted wrote:

Michael Christ wrote:
>

On 5/04/2024 1:43 pm, Ted wrote:

Michael Christ wrote:
>

On 5/04/2024 9:25 am, Skeeter wrote:

In article <BtFPN.509822$vFZa.464902@fx13.iad>,
ted.street@gmail.com says...

Maximus wrote:
>

Ted wrote:

Michael Christ wrote:
>

On 4/04/2024 3:00 pm, Ted wrote:

Maximus wrote:
>

Ted wrote:

Attila wrote:
>

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:10:50 GMT, "Ted"
<ted.street@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
<u29PN.128050$_a1e.117460@fx16.iad> wrote:
>
>

I have yet to see
any evidence that
any soul

exists.  >> >> >> >> > > > > > >

OMG, you're kidding,
right?  WTF do you
think it is

that >> >> holds >> you >>>>>> up, man??

Muscle and bone.

How ridiculous. When
your soul leaves your
body, your

muscle >> and >> bone >>>> collapse to the ground

because >>>>>>>>>>>they're >> no >> longer >> being >> supported

by >> the >>>> >>soul.  >>>>>>>>>That's obvious.  >> >> >> >> > > >

and the muscle and bones
are still there but the
soul

isn't.  >> >> Good >> class, >>> well done.
The first time the question was asked:
>

You are assuming there was a
"soul" there in the first
place.  What is your basis
for that assumption?
>

the beatles

Apparently you are unable to
provide a rational answer so you
resort to attempted deflection
and redirection.

You can't claim the Beatles
weren't real. I remember seeing

them >> on >> > Ed Sullivan. They were quite real.

Do you >>>>>>> think >>Ed >>>>>>Sullivan >> was a >> > myth too?

I remember seeing them on Jack Parr,
their first American appearance, but
that has nothing to do with the
existence or non-existence of a
soul.  They even don't accomplish a
misdirection or attempted change of
subject very well.
>
They do however strongly emphasize a
complete and total failure to
address the actual issue as well as
a failure to even attempt to answer
the question asked.

The "actual issue", as I see it, is
your implication that Ed Sullivan was
a myth!

The actual issue is the question I asked
above and will repeat here:

The second time the question was asked:
>

" You are assuming there was a "soul"
there in the first place.  What is your
basis for that assumption?"
>
Again, what is your basis for that
assumption?
>
>
BTW, the Ed Sullivan Show was not the
first appearance by the Beatles in the
US?
>
"Teenage music fans comprised a large
part of The Beatles? fan base. The news
magazine show The Huntley-Brinkley
Report likely didn?t register with
them. But anyone watching the show on
Nov.  18, 1963, saw The Beatles? first
TV appearance in the U.S."
>
"The Beatles showed up on American TV
again a few weeks before their first
live TV appearance in the U.S. On Jan.
3.  1964, talk show host Jack Paar
aired clips of the Fab Four performing
live versions of ?From Me to You? and
?She Loves You?  to the ever-present
audiences of screaming teenagers, per
The Trivia Book of The Beatles."
>
I saw that show on TV.  They were
greeted with hysterical laughter.
>
Ed Sullivan was on  Feb. 9, 1964.
>
>

>

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-beatles-1st-tv-appearance-in-the-u-s-wasnt-the-ed-sullivan-show.html/

Thanks for straightening that out,
Attila. I was just a kid then, so I don't
remember.

Once again you ignored the basic question
but I can repeat it - again - for the third
time:
>
   " You are assuming there was a "soul" there in the

first >>>>>>>>>>>>>  place.  What is your basis for that

assumption?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you. Your soul is what
holds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you up.  That's obvious.

You have made that assumption clear.  I am
asking for the basis you use for that
assumption.
>
Or did you just make it up?
>
>

The basis is simple observation. When someone's
soul leaves their body, they fall down. Because
there's no longer anything holding them up. As I
said, it's obvious. So obvious that I don't
understand why you're not getting it.

because it's not a legitimate proposition. the soul
is not in evidence. you have to establish first
that a soul exists before you can posit any
arguments about it.

If the soul doesn't exist then why are there still
monkeys?

I doubt it minimus dickus will answer that excellent
question, Ted.
>

LOL!
>
>

He is not about truth, he is about lifestyle.
>
>
>
Michael Christ

>
And just as you predicted, he sidestepped the question
instead of answering it.

no I did not liar. I requested clarification of it. and I or
anyone is under no obligation to answer your questions
anyway, liar.

>
What question? About the monkeys? I'd just like to know what
exactly it is you have against monkeys. Makes no sense to me.

There better not be anyone dissing monkeys. You know how I

live >>>>> monkeys.

Me too!
>
>
Michael Christ

>
>
So do I. Hell, who doesn't, apart from Maximus. He probably

hates >>> dogs too.

>
It is clear he is one very nasty fellow and has no respect for
animals.
>
This is a first on alt.atheism, an animal hater!
>
>
Michael Christ

>

 

>
In my memory, yes, but anybody who's that full of hatred is
likely also a racist.

 

>
lol! do you two ever take a good look at yourselves? you've formed
a conclusion based on a suggestion and assumption. how stupid are
you.  where is there any evidence I hate animals? but I think you
two are just playing games with me. neither of you should be taken
seriously, that's for sure.

>

 

Then why are you here?

   He's just trolling for attention. That's why I'm not playing his silly
game any more.