Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by BillySands


351. Fleabytes

Comment #142133 by BillySands on March 12, 2008 at 3:49 am

David

I'm afraid that he did argue that there were no moral absolutes and when he was asked was that statement itself an absolute replied by saying he was not going to get into that kind of circular argument.


Even if this were an absolute statement, it does not mean that there are moral absolutes. The problem is that you claim that there are, so the burden of proof is on you. Please provide some evidence

352. Fleabytes

Comment #142128 by BillySands on March 12, 2008 at 3:38 am

David

Certainly. All human beings are created equal. Racism is wrong. Dachau was wrong. These are moral absolutes.


Sorry David, I asked you to demonstrate that moral absolutes exist. I did not ask for your opinion. You have demonstrated that you believe they are wrong. You have not even come close to demonstrating they are wrong in any absolute sense.
The early church fathers had no problem with rasicm - they even debated whether black people had souls. The Nazi - did not think Dachau was wrong, and many believe that not all people are equal (think church and slavery - Augustine even said that people were slaves at god's pleasure, and that in his eves slavery was not a sin). Oh, and we were not created!

So David, it appears that moral values are relative. So, I ask you again, do you have any evidence that they are absolute - you cant just define something as an absoulte and say it is. You have to demonstrate it. Using your standard, it is just as valid to say that Dachau was good - where iare the reasons that it is or is not?
Please bear in mind in your next answer, that you have only given your opinion on what morality should be - you have not shown that there is an ultimate moral law dictated by your god - who if he was such a source must surly be constrained by it and is therefore not omnipotent.

353. Fleabytes

Comment #142125 by BillySands on March 12, 2008 at 3:23 am

MaxD

It was at that point I realized you weren't very qualified. Not even to quote the bible. Or to understand that which you were quoting did nothing to help your case. The Bible actually says; 1In the begining God created the heavens and the earth.
2. and the Earth was formless and void and a darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3. Then God said, "Let there be light."


Even more bizarrely, he thinks there were no earthquakes, tsunami's, disease, volcanoes before a talking snake made Eve eat the apple (strictly speaking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, they could only have known that was supposedly evil to disobey god after they did this)

"In this they reflect our besieged atheistic friends who are becoming increasingly frustrated because their old fashioned modernistic arguments are more and more being exposed for the intellectual limitations they are. Richard Dawkins was quick off the mark â€" suggesting that the Asian Tsunami was once again an illustration of the fact that there is no God. In this he was using Darwin's old argument ""There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the parasitic wasp with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice". Now we before we answer this let us consider its implications. If there is no God and no creator then what we are saying is that this is just the way things are. 'Mother Nature' is cruel and vicious. There is no answer â€" only despair, death and destruction. But what about Darwin's argument? He makes one big mistake â€" he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, 'And God say that it was good'. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation 'groans as in the pangs of childbirth'. We are faced with two choices â€" either the world is as it is because that is the way things are, or things are the way things are because sin came in and corrupted a good and perfect creation."

354. Fleabytes

Comment #142120 by BillySands on March 12, 2008 at 3:15 am

Muddledthinker said

So for example those who hear the words atheist creed immediately start asking 'what creed'? They ignore the fact that I was commenting on Paulas statement that atheism is de facto secular, humanist, rational and democratic.


Liar!Epeeist has been chalenging you on that for months when you said it in several entierly different contexts.

Tell us again why you thing only god can make the universe. I need a laugh from a poor quality history grad talking about cosmology

355. Fleabytes

Comment #141968 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Looks like rdm could not get his link right. He means this one

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/519961

Must be a web fingered thing

356. Fleabytes

Comment #141962 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Was bored and was on the Robertson pravda site and found this gem from a rdm

See :http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149664&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149490&contentPK=20051449&folderPk=85696&pNodeId=149221 Todays Press & Journal : CONTROVERSIAL PROFESSOR SET TO GIVE TALK IN INVERNESS I think it's scandalous that the UHI should be 'sponsoring' this free event. Judging by UHI principal Professor Bob Cormack's fawning remarks it's set up to be a very one-sided affair??


http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg183#msg183

Nice to see that opposing points of view are not considered scandalous (sarcasm David).

Nice to see you are not a bunch of inbred fundies then (more sarcasm).

357. Fleabytes

Comment #141865 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 9:59 am

Since I have explained very clearly to David on this thread that there is absolutely no question of any such censorship taking place, it would be nice to think that he would post a message on his forum correcting this entirely false statement. I'm obviously not holding my breath though.


Yes, you would think that anyone - like a moderator (no names, but it is an anagram of Rev bandit odors) would feel a moral obligation to correct that. Isn't there a commandment about false witness?

In the lorry accident Billy's head gets smeared like a watermelon under an elephant's foot.


Actually, I'm not dead, just badly injured and in a lot of pain...... I think I can move my leg ...

358. Fleabytes

Comment #141759 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 7:06 am

Perhaps you merely lack imagination.


Interesting point. Don't tou just love the theists arrogance here - "if I (a history graduate) cant come up with an explanation for the universe, then it must be god wot did it.

David, your personal intellectual short commings are not evidence!

359. Fleabytes

Comment #141750 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 6:50 am

Hey David, Bet you cant demonstrate a moral absulute. We have asked you loads of times, but you dont care about truth, you just want to talk bollocks - feel free to prove me wrong. You believe homosexuality is absolutly wrong, but you have never come anywhere close to demonstrating it.

Silly attention seeking-self congratulating Boy

'Should we jail them if they misbehave? Should we hold them accountable and responsible? Or do they police themselves?'


You almost think he is genuinely interested, then he comes away with pish like that!

David, should we jail muslims for revering a kiddie fidler?

360. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141659 by BillySands on March 11, 2008 at 3:24 am

Level 6 for me!

No matter how hard I try to be really evil, I cant seem to get past level 7 - which pisses off one of my friends who got level 7. She alsoi considers herself to be a good person - isn't the pope a twat!

361. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141470 by BillySands on March 10, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Is the natural process of horizontal gene thransfer a sin too then?

I'm off to put some foreign DNA into something, to piss off the paedophile sheltering CUNT!

362. Fleabytes

Comment #140362 by BillySands on March 7, 2008 at 7:45 am

don't forget that there are also "other ways of knowing". A guy I debate with uses that one a LOT.



I think he is trying the technique used on him - indoctrination

363. Fleabytes

Comment #140349 by BillySands on March 7, 2008 at 7:12 am

mlearnedfriend,

Either your name is Greg or you both copied this off the same fundie site.

Unity - nice god vs nasty god? grace or deeds? to name but a few problems

self proclaimed authority - presuppositionalist to be polite about it

Endorsement by jesus - presuppositionalist, and he has not said anything that had been said before him.

Fulflled prophecy - such as? Do you really think isaiah 7:14 is really about jesus? What about Jeremiah's 70 years of captivity? More like 49! What about the promise that Solomon would always have a decendant on the throne of israel? to name but a few.

Archaeology - you are actually on to a total loser here: Jericho had no wall at the time joshua was supposedly on his baby killing spree. It was also deserted, as was Ai. Quirinus - we ctually have a list of govenors for that area - the bible is just wrong/inconsistent http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

superiority of concept: What, you mean toning homosexuals, not planting two different crops in the same field and curing leprosy with avian blood? This is a highly subjective statement you are making here. Hinduism has been around a lot longer - surly by your logic, it must be superior to christianity.

It's ability. People claim the Koran changes them - as did the hitler rallies, so why does that mean any of them are true? The bible also lowers the quality of life for some believers.

364. Fleabytes

Comment #138339 by BillySands on March 4, 2008 at 8:05 am

Artful also promised to provide us with evidence for objections to materialism. Hasn't done that yet either.


It's a common theme with christians. It's kind of like they once met a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy whose dog once bit the leg of a guy who once over heard a guy telling another guy that he once overheard someone saying there was a guy who knew something.

365. Fleabytes

Comment #137775 by BillySands on March 3, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Fuck SG, you did it again, could we get a warning in future - I feel sick!

Dont know whats worse, Robertson's paranoid rant or his ugly puss!

Nice to see he favours equality in teaching various beliefs. Wonder what he would think if his children were forced into muslim prayers - like I was forced into christian prayers at school.

"We want to see the state system returning to its Christian roots and Christian ethos.


What's the christian equivalent of turban and burka?

366. Fleabytes

Comment #137661 by BillySands on March 3, 2008 at 10:06 am

Billysands

Don't you mean "Not to be a total pedant"?


Doh!

367. Fleabytes

Comment #137639 by BillySands on March 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

Not to be total pedant


Dont you mean "Not to be a total pedant"?
:-)

368. Fleabytes

Comment #137574 by BillySands on March 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

That is exactly how it has worked since I began posting there last summer. I've certainly never known an article appear and then be taken down. Anyway, I've sent J an email to get his version of events, so perhaps soon all will be clear.


In addition to the posts where I quoted and linked to his comments here, Martin Gill and I had some comments removes on his "arguing with atheists" thread. All we did was point out his straw men and misrepresentations.

369. Fleabytes

Comment #137571 by BillySands on March 3, 2008 at 7:45 am

I find use of the term "wearisome" rather odd, and am a bit surprised they are having to cope with size (especially considering what Josh deals with here) but apart from that the moderation process description suggests articles won't be removed, but simply won't be shown until they are approved. Is that the way it works (I have never posted)? I am also intruiged as to what the moderation criteria are.


I haven't posted on the "new" site because from previous experience, David removed some of my old posts that quoted some of his inflammatory remarks on this site. I basically dont want to waste time and have him remove other posts he does not like.
I remember a few of the FCOS members saying that they wanted to keep it the way it was. I cant imagine why David would not want to keep all those sectarian and evolution denying posts on his site after the atheists started reading.

I suggest one reason for the change was that David was constyantly getting his arse handed to him by the atheists.
I think it is interesting that he makes a comment about allowing people to post even if he does not like them. I guess he must not like quite a few folk then.

I wonder if some other moderator allowed -J-s post then David saw it and censored it. I dont know why an image of the air raid warden from Dad's army calling David Napolean just popped into my head there.

370. Fleabytes

Comment #137330 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:53 pm

From David's letter to Adam

No. We are cannon fodder for the likes of Dawkins if we so water down the message of the Bible that in reality it just becomes baptised paganism.


You know David, you have almost had a revelation there

371. Fleabytes

Comment #137321 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:43 pm

There is no misunderstanding. The situation is clear. The fact that even with this plain, simple, and evidenced account of things, some atheists still manage to turn this into 'this is another one of Robertsons' lies', is yet another indication of the twisted and surreal world of the Dawkins website. And the language, lack of argumentation and the sheer hatred is obvious to anyone who reads the thread on the Dawkins website. I am sorry I ever returned


Hey David, I hope you get over this mental illness of yours. Get well soon dude!

372. Fleabytes

Comment #137307 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Going back a bit, Steve said:

I am happy that on our side of this discussion, we have evidence of actual people who are prepared to express their views like this, and not David Robertson's: "I bumped into an ex-atheist the other day, who happened to say 'Dawkins is a big silly'"


I met a theist called Rob on a blog recently who had a lot of incoherent dribble to say about Dawkins. It turns out he hasn't even read him - MORON! http://brushwoodthicket.blogspot.com/2008/02/charm-and-flaw-of-richard-dawkins.html

It does display the problem we face about word of mouth christian misrepresentations. The obviously start somewhere and when you have a book of misrepresentations like DR's, you can see how they start

373. Fleabytes

Comment #137300 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Note, the reason for creating "woman" in the frist place was mans loneliness. Not because she was to be the sexual opposite of him



Gen220 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

I have always thought of this as a failure on god's part.

I wonder which translation David thinks is inerrant?

The NJV?
Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, a virgin shall conceive"

The NJB "Behold, the young woman shall conceive"

Or

Psalm 22:16

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet." (KJV)

or

"For dogs have compassed me; a company of evil doers have inclosed me; like a lion they are at my hands and my feet." (Masoretic text)

Red sea/sea of reeds anyone?

Oh wait, David uses the NIV acknowledges the controversy whith a footnote about other possible translations. Not an insignificant difference, as this is supposedly a crucifixion prophecy. Read in context yhough, only a mad man would think that though.

374. Fleabytes

Comment #137103 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 10:57 am

I had my suspicions from the start. For example I noticed:


I suspected when I first saw the name: he had contantly tried to mock the clear thinking tag of the site (one of his deliberately provocative and predictably boring comments). Only a not very bright window licking whackjob would have the stupidity/arrogance to use such a name

375. Fleabytes

Comment #137096 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 10:47 am

What were the real reasons for his banning? I'm fairly certain his are slightly skewed.


Being deliberatly provocative I think. I see he distorts it again and once more acts the victim.

376. Fleabytes

Comment #137016 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 6:29 am

It'll be interesting to see if it stays there.


I notice it has not been moderated yet. Oh well if he does remove it, at least we know he has been pulled up for his lies.

377. Fleabytes

Comment #136971 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:42 am

SG, that was hilarious.

Steve, I really do wonder if David is actually mentally ill.

378. Fleabytes

Comment #136962 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:31 am

Aye, thrown a wobbly, and posted a pile o' pish on his own web site.


Fuck! you should have warned me there was a picture of him. How can the good lord suffer such an abomination to walk the earth without a brain?

I like this quote from it:
Dawkins was forced to unban me - so now his followers seek to drown out any argument in a morass of abuse, crudity and meaningless waffle (with the occasional worthwhile post).
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg177#msg177

Maybe Richard could comment on this being forced business. Personally, I think Robertson is lying to look more important to the deluded

379. Fleabytes

Comment #136950 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 4:14 am

SG
ROFL

Yep, it smells rather fishy doesn't it. Maybe David can explain why god was rewarding him for dishonesty and taking £7.50 off what is due the bus owner and his family.
I think Deuteronomy 28 says something about what will happen if you break the commandments. Looks like I wont be buying any pies in Dundee for a wee while (Deut 28:54 "Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating."

I see he has thrown a wobbly and will not get into discussion with us. That's a pity, I would like to see him makig a total tit of himself answering MPhil's omnipotence post.

380. Fleabytes

Comment #136930 by BillySands on March 2, 2008 at 3:40 am

David Robertson(2362): "...early on in my ministry we decided to take a busload of children on an outing to the beach. We hired the bus and were told it cost £87.50. The only people who knew about this were myself and my wife. We did not have the money and we knew the church did not. We felt a bit embarrassed about going to ask so instead we just prayed that the money would come in. When we left the bus I wrote the driver a cheque for £87.50 (money that we did not have). He told us just to make it a straight £80. As we left the bus some of the parents handed £30. Later that night someone put a cheque for £50 through the door. Now of course you can claim that it was just an enormous improbability. Or (as will doubtless happen) there will be those who say I am lying, forgetting etc. But I know because I was there."


Unlike David, let's think for a moment. This would require god making someone do something - you know, violate the concept of free will - the thing that he supposedly does not do, and supposedly that is why evil things happen.

The other day I did not have change for the coffee machine, and lo and behold, without asking, someone gave me a pound coin. If fact, it happens quite often, so what is your point?

I would have been more impressed if god found some money to feed the starving of the world. Still, David, that must make you and your pie stuffed dundonian kids feel all the more special

381. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #135845 by BillySands on February 29, 2008 at 9:44 am

Can any of you clever scientists point me to a web-site which explains how sexual reproduction evolved?


I smell troll

382. Fleabytes

Comment #135607 by BillySands on February 29, 2008 at 6:16 am


14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Still no answer


Oh, that's an easy one: Romans 10:18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound [the gospel] went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."

That's why when Columbus went to America, he discovered ..... Oh wait - Damn! they weren't christians, were they?

383. Fleabytes

Comment #135591 by BillySands on February 29, 2008 at 5:51 am

Paula said

Both letters just brimming over with Christian charity and magnaminity, as you can see! I'd be interested to hear what other people make of them.


The anti papist guy is typical of many in the free church (yet David seems to be in denial). Robertson does not actually deal with the issue of the ordination vows.
Personally I think that if he does not agree with them, he should have the integrity not to take those vows. I also question the integrity of someone who would take such an oath if they did not believe it.
I think that confession just perpetuates the sectarian problems we have, and by accepting it, David is contributing to the root of the problem.

384. Fleabytes

Comment #135093 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I have to say I'm incredibly suspicious of PMurdock.


Me too, I've seen this "questioning" before, then BAM all of a sudden they become a YEC fundie or something and you have just bee wasting your time. Too may "buzz words" being thrown around for my likeing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but if his intention is something else, I would much rather he be honest about it.

These questions seem a primer to suggesting it is contradictory to believe in a lack of absolute moral law and claim to be moral

385. Fleabytes

Comment #135082 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Proof: Deut 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD


Wait a minute Matt 1:

Perez (bastard (Gen 38))
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed (his mother was a Moabibte - they can never enter the congregation (Nehemiah 13:1-3)
Jesse

But that's not 10 gereations and Jesse was definately in the congregation (1 sam 16:5)

Only David Robertson can explain this one!

386. Fleabytes

Comment #135047 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Also, can I pursue any goals I want, or do I owe something to humanity--if so, what?


That's up to you. You dont need religion to do "good" things

387. Fleabytes

Comment #135041 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Right, where's those running shoes then...I'll give it another shot...


Works a lot better than prayer.
Seriously though, being an atheist puts you back in charge of your own life. There is no relying on an invisible friend to help you through life. You realise that everything you achieve is down to your own efforts and that you achieve the good things yourself and god is not teaching you a lesson (which you struggle to discover) when things go wrong.

Then you are free from all that "you are polluted" nonsense

388. Fleabytes

Comment #134978 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I smell a rat.


Or a flea!

Another Robertson catch phrase "I was told I would get intelligent chat"

Actually, one of the worst explanations of "God / suffering / why?" I ever read was David Robertsons article in the aftermath of the 2004 earthquake and tsunami:


Ah yes, the one where he claims the universe was different before the fall. Lets play spot his evidence: http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2005/jan05.htm

Nope, couldn't see it either. oh wait, here it is, totally refuting all that evidence of ancient faults, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, fossils of diseased animals, fossils of animals that survived serious wounds and fossils of deformed animals - not to mention all those eggs that never hatched and all the bone spliners in fossil dinosaur shit and metor impact craters:

He [Dawkins] makes one big mistake; he assumes that the world as it is now is the world as God created it. But that is not the case. When you read Genesis One notice the repeated refrain, 'And God say that it was good'. God did not create the world to have natural disasters, cancer and death. Something came into the world which has upset the natural order of things and polluted the whole environment. That is why, as Paul tells us in Romans 8, the whole creation 'groans as in the pangs of childbirth'.

And they let this guy near "science" students!

389. Fleabytes

Comment #134892 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

Robertson still not said how his evidence is valid?

Still not said why something is objectivly wrong?

Oh well, no surprise there.

He really does seem to swallow his own bullshit. He acuses RD of being scaresd to address his points (what points?) yet is too much of coward to address anyone elses.

David, are you going to stalk RD and ask him to sign your panties at UHI?

I hope you give youyr usuall bollocks about him and he points out what a nasty liar you are to you in front of all your fundie friends

390. Fleabytes

Comment #134788 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 8:00 am

Someone wake me up when David provides some evidence for his supernatural claims. To be honest, all you need to do is look at the so-called virgin birth prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) in context to see that it is not about jesus nd that the gospel writers have lied. David's response was something along the lines of anyone who knows anything about prophecy knows that the prophecy need not be binding to the context or the person it was about - he never justifiued why - If I recall when I challenged him to support that claim, he called me a fundie - Time for your medication David!

Where is Pewkatchoo these days - he had a lovely way with David.

Philip,

I bagsy T. rex!

Could I possibly claim beaver?


Oooooh err missus!

391. Fleabytes

Comment #134729 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 6:28 am

I smell bullshit! Oh, David has been back, that's why - briefly scanning, I see more ad homs and no substance I'm affraid.

mlearnedfriend, are you any relation of David's? We could turn this into a game of 20 questions while we wait for some actual substance from DR

392. Fleabytes

Comment #134576 by BillySands on February 28, 2008 at 2:34 am

Great web site - try the latest comments;


Any by David Robertson?

393. Fleabytes

Comment #134337 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 3:55 pm

So good christians will get to look down upon the eternal suffering of their loved ones who didn't make it into heaven and enjoy it? That's sick.


Well, Jesus does tell you to hate them (and everyone else):

Luke 14:26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

394. Fleabytes

Comment #134328 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 3:39 pm

However, for a theist to act in such a way, they are not only trying to wind the atheist up but (in their mind) actually saying "Fuck you, go to hell" and truly beliving that to be the consequence.


Would it surprise you to know that this has been pointed out to him before and he said that we were fundies who did not want to believe in god?
I think he also said that we were too sensitive as fundies are to those who disagree with them.
I imagine that if there is a loving god, then hell must surly hold a place for him.

I have also pointed outMatt 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

395. Fleabytes

Comment #134120 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 9:31 am

Billy: I think the "church" comment referred to your avatar...


I can't think why I associate the flea with Twatt?

Right, I'm off for a chicken supper

396. Fleabytes

Comment #134105 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 8:57 am

I wonder if all these "new" guys would care to ask Robertson to ever so nicely answer the questions

397. Fleabytes

Comment #134083 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 8:16 am

Angela's Ashes?


Yes, it does sound lik it would be something from there, but I remember a colleague telling me it a long time ago - before any of this stuff was of interest to me.

From what I hear though, there is a lot of truth in Angela's ashes. Did I also mention I have a friend who was told she will go to hell if she ever married a protestant?

398. Fleabytes

Comment #134077 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 7:51 am

Ok, what do you think of David's groundless accusation that we are all Atheist Fundamentalists and that since we don't believe in his particular god that we have the same moralistic tendencies as Nazis?


Erm, he just called us a church, what do you think?

Really? Was it an FCOS church?


I cant remember, but think it was RC. I have mentioned before though someone in the FCOS who cant enjoy herself because the concept of hell has been drummed into her

Are you sure we shouldn't try sprinkling the wafer with Holy Water first? That is how you stop the undead, isn't it?


Yes, Jesus is a zombie, not a vampire. We could boil him in tea.

Philip, did you meet him in person or just through this site? My experience is that corresponce over the internet often gives false impressions of motivation (I've sometimes got into situations where I've upset someone in a letter / e-mail and resorted to speaking personally to sort things out).


Well, you read the comments and the links to other comments he made and give your opinion.
If you actually want to do what David doesn't - discuss things properly, then I'm sure you
will be made most welcome.
I hear Hitler could be charming in person too.

399. Fleabytes

Comment #134067 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 7:33 am

I have met David in person, though, and he's quite an affable chap. The sort of guy you'd probably enjoy a pint with.


Doubt it. I dont drink for starters!
Was David crying to you then?

PS, In case you did not notice, this is not a church, but I dont think a "friend" of David would have the clarity of vision to see that.

Quetz, can we take one of those wafers and drive a stake through it? I remember hearing a story of a child who was punished once for puking up jesus.

David, self praise is no praise.


Maybe David has multiple personalities like god, who so loved the world that he drowned it

400. Fleabytes

Comment #134063 by BillySands on February 27, 2008 at 7:28 am

It's his mum. She and I had a thing once...


I remember, and apparently she enjoyed it

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 | Next