Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... From: Robert Baty Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:18 AM To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Batty s gnat of gras Veto Roley again confirms my
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2008
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert Baty
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:18 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: Batty's gnat of gras

      Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

      Veto writes:

      > I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

      What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

      >> "the fool sayeth in his
      >> heart there is no God"

      > means, is properly
      > interterpreted to mean

      >> "all atheists are fools".

      Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any authorities in support thereof.

      The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

      > for all Veto Roley knows

      >> there are some things
      >> more than a few thousand
      >> years old,

      >> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
      >> valid, and

      >> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
      >> sound.

      By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

      And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his own advice and just "shutting up"!

      Robert Baty

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Veto F. Roley
      Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

      Batty continues his irrationality by writing, "Am I become your enemy because I have told you the truth? I provide some good empirical evidence that such can be the case."

      Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth. I took the patently, prima facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the Christian God if that God exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that you don't comprehend the obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for you, demonstrated the Truth of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you how those 17 pieces led to the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the atheist is a fool for rejecting Him. It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is nothing that prevents an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world or from solving very complex math problems), but very foolish in another area. It was shown to you that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME TIME, foolish in another.
      Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the "fool" category in regards to God.

      Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what? That I have� a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you). I haven't seen evidence of either. I stand by my promise that once you start behaving rationally and intelligently, then I will stop calling you a fool. You can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic. The first admission admits the Truth. The second admission provides a rational context for your denial that the athiest is a fool for rejecting God. It is your inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

      As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen anything. All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven false. To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my doubts that you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be like you arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the validity of Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been carefully explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds. The more your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets -- even though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could get any lower. Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as outright error does not make your errors correct, Batty. Batty, you haven't made a valid argument since I've been on this board, with Truth being the arbiter of what is valid.

      Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth. This is why you have ZERO credibility with me. This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.