SkyHigh

This time it was a case of being misspoken and not mistaken I was trying to say that if the statement was true, libel doesn't apply But, I'm giving you another credit for not calling me kiddo once. Hahahaha

I respect your opinion but I think we'll have to agree to disagree

You are beyond dishonest, I wasn't even speaking with you when you made up a post saying it came from me, then all gloves were off, and I treated you the way you deserve because of your complete lack of moral fiber. I would also object to anyone being called a drunk. You should just try to rise above it, there's strength in that. Normally I would never do such a thing,and you a right when you say to riise above but when people are that despicable they don't deserve to be treated respectfully.

For defemation he would have to prove Trudeau lied knowingly and that he suffered because of it. If he can prove that the case has merit, but that could be difficult.

You have a deal, but I do reserve the right to take away your point for such things as a bad joke. Hahaha

I'm not asking you to explain what happened, just how you came to the conclusion it was something supernatural. Because, even though I believe, that you believe it was supernatural, I think you'll agree that your mental state does nothing for me. Without verifiable evidence I can't even include the supernatural as a candidate explanation. Therefore it can't be included in my world view. That's the claim, any actual evidence?

As I thought, you pathetic, impotent, little drunk

Is this really all you have? At least you went from making up posts attributed to me, to just inventing aspects of my life. Both because you know you can't actually respond honestly to my real opinion. Still sad but at least it's progress. I wonder if you'd be any more of a nimrod sober, but I doubt it.

Just sad You did better when you had to make what I say up. Maybe put down the bottle, at least for now

You're complete lack of morals pale only to your utter lack of class You are a truly miserable, dishonest person.

The saddest part, I actually think you believe that FYI. I will no longer be responding to you.

I see that more as a badge of honor than a condemnation of your opinions.

I fùckin started responding before I had seen your link, then had to erase the whole thing, it's a shame for both of us though,my witty retorts were quite clever. Hahaha It appears I was mistaken and the idea that a parent can be compelled by the legal system as to how he interacts with his own children is disgusting (of course excluding safety etc ) maybe a little dickish, but no where near the level that should require prosecution I did notice that the actual charge was contempt ,in my understanding this is related to ones conduct in the court room or a dictate from a judge, but I may be wrong (honestly the only legal "training" I've received was with the young offender system when I was a kid, but that's a whole other discussion, hahaha). This is definitely a semantic issue but I still feel it's important. I didn't notice in the article the decision handed down from his charter challenge, do you know what the resolution to that was?

I think I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. The Charter had been around for a long time, and if such things were possible, they would have already been adjudicated by someone. I don't see how refusing to use someones preferred pronoun could be considered hate anymore than calling a homosexual a fág, or a woman a bítch and this forum alone proves that, or half the people here would have faced criminal charges by now. But maybe I missed something. I believe you to be an honest interlocutor (one of the few here) therefore I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree) and invite you to potentially expand my understanding of your point.

Oh you have gods number? Or do you think he's talking to you audibly? So, still no argument Maybe you don't understand how it works, the person that makes the claim has what's called "the burden of proof" that means that they must support their assertions. In this case you are asserting god exists, I do not accept that claim, therefore you must provide evidence. Ok, now you can ignore what I said (along with all reason and logic) and just call me a pervert, because that's all you have. Sad little man.

So no argument, gotcha (as in I understand not as in a gotcha question, no need for that you do it to yourself) Sad little man Bye now!

Dude you literally created a post out of whole cloth then falsely attributed it to me. The dishonesty required to do that speaks volumes to your character. Didn't you mute me because I think drunk drivers should loose their lincences permanently? Then you take a shot at my upbringing, is there no depth to your immorality? Then again ,what can I expect from someone who thinks they should be celebrated for not having driven drunk , for a whole year Get off the sauce son, I can hear you slurring your words just reading you. Oh yes, you should definitely go to Ukraine a) because people with such low morals as you have don't contribute to free and fair society, and. b) the roads will be safer for those that do obey traffic laws, because most people care about how their actions effect others

Seriously? Apologies, light was day one, plants day three and the SUN day four , but light without sun doesn't really make sense and you can't get photosynthesis from a flash light. So my point is still valid This is the only question that matters because if god doesn't exist we know the Bible is false. The rest of what you're saying is just fluff because you can't provide a positive argument that supports the core issue of any argument about god. Does he exist! So do you have any positive, logically sound, deductively valid inferences that provided the capacity to predict or evidence that exclusively (or at least allows us to exclude other major world views) support that assertion, or are you just going to continue to play semantic games?

Nope, just stated the scientific consensus, seriously just google "is infinity a number". I did after my first comment on the topic just to confirm I wasn't talking out my ass. So if there was a hint of superiority it is more related to your unwillingness to challenge what you believe. Not being able to divide by zero is remedial math And the concept of infinity is introduced in early high school Try harder son

I've read the Bible cover to cover, I grew up in more than one Christian foster home. So still no argument for god eh? How long before you just admit there is none ? At least some Christians will acknowledge it's about faith not facts, but you're not even that honest or maybe just not that smart, oh why quibble everyone knows it's both and when you add your impotence, both phallic and mental you see why the only feeling you evoke in me is pity So any evidence of your sky daddy?

While you are correct that this doesn't definitively prove that god doesn't exist, it is certainly part of the cumulative case against the existence of God. God by definition is not falsifiable, this is a problem for people like me that use reason, logic and the scientific method to come to conclusions. The scientific method (therefore logic and reason) is all about DISproving what we think we know. Science does not make truth claims.Period Comparing a tri omni God,reveling the truth of his creation, to be recorded by man, in his inerrant word, that is to be used to bring all of his children to salvation and a math teacher following a syllabus, that is designed to instruct students in a methodical way to understand theories and formulas and then PROVE (because math uses abstract objects (numbers) to represent aspects of reality it is the only science that makes any claims of proof, the rest just use models based on our current understanding) the validity of said theories and formulas. 2+2 will always equal 4 (at least using classical logic, hahaha. I wonder if you got that joke) is pretty much you waving the white flag If gods revelation is in any way analogous to an underpaid, overworked, kindergarten teacher, how powerful can he be? I have physically witnessed all of my teachers and gained tangible, quantifiable knowledge from most by simply being present. But after searching diligently for many years (and still am to some extent) for any god or gods and have found no evidence (in fact I've found the contrary) nor any knowledge or wisdom that can't be found elsewhere (read that last part carefully, I'm not saying the Bible is void of knowledge or wisdom just that is not exclusive to Christianity) Now, I have given honest responses to why I don't believe, if you can't actually respond to them and are simply going to come back with nah han or an insult, just don't bother responding, because for me that will signify that you are not looking for the same kind of conversation I am and I will no longer interact (not that I think it would bother you) I want to know as many true things and as few false things as possible. So if you could provide a positive argument for the existence of God, remembering that the Bible is the claim not the evidence. I will gladly listen and if it's a strong argument may even alter my world view. If not, kick rocks

Ok last time, you're arguing against something that no educated person would contest and I don't find that interesting And since I have no interest in debating with someone so far detached from reality. I will wish you a wonderful day and sincerely hope you find the courage to honestly evaluate how your world view fails to correspond to the reality we all share.

Oh you're starting to get it, π is great example. Infinity is used to describe a set of numbers often between to points. Ie: if you take a ruler and divide it in half, theoretically you will have infinite measurements, but because numbers must be finite and infinity has no numerological value it is not used in hard math, but is simply a place holder to better explain a concept. This is not controversial, this is the consensus of the entirety of science

Ran away? Please There's no reason to argue with someone so ignorant of math, you might as well be arguing 2+2=647.

Wow , how many ways can you be wrong. First and most important, the fact that the Bible doesn't provide explanations beyond the understanding of the time, supports my argument. Either the Bible was written by bronze age goat farmers or god lacks the power or the knowledge to reveal the truth of his creation. Second, the biblical account of creation (either of the two different accounts) goes against what science has demonstrated. ie: in the Bible the plants came before the sun and I could do the same for almost the entirety of the creation story. So, explain that?