Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!198.186.190.30.MISMATCH!news-out.netnews.com|netnews.com!postmaster.netnews.com!us2.netnews.com!not-for-mail X-Trace: DXC=cMkAXm^74HiUW9:WcN5a;fHWonT5<]0TmQ;nb^V>PUff5[gZBW6J?Llo>@oN;JD0Zc;?6VI\NVo5`;P;LXY4GAXgf0>k00;aQjg4oYC1[ECcNg X-Complaints-To: support@blocknews.net From: Skeeter Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling Subject: Re: Facts are facts in religioworld. Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 12:06:06 -0600 References: <66087e5f$0$2422115$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <0eah0j10kfcvg6la5ho62kvf7j0f31ro48@4ax.com> <%_oON.746016$xHn7.39142@fx14.iad> <1d0p0jlb2dej8ud4qmv379m1n4rv0063em@4ax.com> <40hPN.619790$c3Ea.315793@fx10.iad>

<660f28d9$0$3711190$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> <17c34cf32ee95f35$147538$2601257$eadde062@news.thecubenet.com> Organization: UTB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 X-Face: *thX1BaTM~DW)y>UfN@S{EF}]NVJb0tk>I;DH,6H"b{{C$VcEn`hIJ(KzC}m2chzq9"omiT xnX+jm>bwDDZ{;7/l:)Usx5=JP2f3_l'.TN%0)q2N[_CgpW;Xlq3`1j32e& X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 240405-8, 4/5/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Lines: 166 Message-ID: <66103d8f$0$2909313$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 X-Trace: 1712340367 reader.netnews.com 2909313 127.0.0.1:50029 Bytes: 9087 In article , pursent100 @gmail.com says... > > % wrote: > > Skeeter wrote: > >> In article , 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" > >>>>>>>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id > >>>>>>>>>> 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. > >> > > > > > 'i live monkeys' > > > > https://postimg.cc/cuSJ4pty LOL > > you typo'ed his links are broken too