#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Jesus Christ or prophet Muhammad, which one is more valuable?
Jesus Christ
Side Score: 244
|
Muhammad
Side Score: 231
|
|
2
points
Jesus was a carpenter who could build things; Mohammed was a plunder and pillager who destroyed things. Advantage: Jesus. Jesus forgave people their sins; Mohammed was a vindictive pedophile who would kill those who were "infidel" and rape your children. Advantage: Jesus. Score: Jesus 2, Mohammed 0 Winner: Jesus. Side: Jesus Christ
Interesting question, why are you not burning in Hell if you have the right to exist outside of it as a sinner? The truth is that you do not have that right, time outside of Hell as a sinner is a gift from God who is showing mercy desiring that you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection to be saved from dying forever in Hell's fire like you are dying now in your sins. Side: Muhammad
1
point
I am sorry - I am expressing my view via your post as I believe the possible answers to this debate are way too closed and biased and secondly - your opinion is completely wrong. Mohammad to Islam is what Jesus Christ is to Christians - and debates like this are the exact ones which make people believe religion causes conflict. As an agnostic, I completely disagree with the idea of one faith trying to compete with another. People have the right to express themselves and follow what they believe in. What you have stated about Jesus and Mohammad is from a scripture. The Bible and the Qu'ran have been left open to interpretation and I feel like this is exactly the problem why religion causes so much conflict - because people like you misinterpret a piece of information (which can be argued unreliable) Everyone should respect that many people have different beliefs and followers. Muhammed was clearly a role model to Muslims for him to have such a title instead of this "vindictive peadophile" you make him out to be. Mohammad and Jesus = equal in importance. Side: Muhammad
2
points
1
point
0
points
0
points
The truth is that they were both charismatic scholars who had the ability to recognize that most people need direction in their lives and were able to influence ''their flock'' of ''sheeple'' to follow the crackpot gobbledygook of their incredible scriptures. I'm certain that if both these so called prophets, who were in their day no more than 'cult Icons', could see the millions of mindless morons who believe in the incoherent ramblings of their overly vivid imagine they would be flabbergasted to the point of collapsing and dying a second time. The people of the west who have long since questioned the validity of the teachings of the Bronze aged book, the Bible, are becoming secular nations. Unfortunately those followers of the Muslim faith are insufficiently intellectually developed to realize that they have devoted their lives to following a religion which was nonsense, is nonsense and will always be nonsense. Perhaps in a 100 years or so they will begin to question their book of nonsense just as Christians have questioned, in the main, and to a greater or lesser extent, rejected their book of 'well meaning' nonsense. . Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Another believer in the evolution fairy tale. For a person who has no clue how the first single cell sprang up to life from no life and who thinks our unbelievably complex DNA just randomly mutated, you have a lot of judgemental nerve demeaning someone else faith. Wow the faith it takes to believe that garbage is faith indeed. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Interesting question, why are you not burning in Hell if you have the right to exist outside of it as a sinner? The truth is that you do not have that right, time outside of Hell as a sinner is a gift from God who is showing mercy desiring that you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection to be saved from dying forever in Hell's fire like you are dying now in your sins. Side: Muhammad
I think you should bow down to yourself as the greatest charismatic scholar that you know, obviously you impress yourself as being smarter than that greatest men who ever lived, and even smarter than God Himself. Go kiss yourself in the mirror and say how great, smart, and good you are. Side: Muhammad
|
It was a joke. It is based on the concept of trading cards for sports stars. A rookie card for a sports star tends to be very valuable for hall of fame players since many people wouldn't have the rookie card of someone who hadn't accomplished anything in their hall of fame career as a rookie. Since I felt like joking I decided to pretend that Mohammad was a sports athlete with a trading card. Side: Muhammad
I don't thing I have ever heard you say anything funny. It might help if you check out the Geico Insurance cavemen pretending to be Neanderthals buck naked in the funniest of the two evolution storyline videos. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ EVOLOTION: Serious VS Funny Side: Jesus Christ
I don't thing I have ever heard you say anything funny. You have no sense of humor. It might help if you check out the Geico Insurance cavemen pretending to be Neanderthals buck naked in the funnies of the two evolution storyline videos. That makes no sense. EVOLOTION: Serious VS Funny The great thing is that science against evolution loses all credibility by releasing a fake evolution video to attempt to be funny. Side: Muhammad
What part of either video was not accurate in telling the story of evolution? Does evolution not teach that reptiles evolved into mammals after multi celled animals evolved from single cell animals? Both videos portray the "facts" of evolution accurately. If you don't like it, too bad....oh, one thing that was obviously a joke was in the video where the real life Geico insurance company t.v. commercial "cavemen" were walking buck naked pretending to be missing links or Neanderthals or whatever. Tell me that's not a joke. Side: Jesus Christ
science is not a person who makes claims. Evolution claims that mammals evolved from reptiles, and that means that they developed hair, breasts, and entirely different circulatory systems in order to have homeostatic temperature control. Those changes could not have happened gradually as the gradual mutations could not have survived. Somewhere along the line, there had to be a sudden change for any mammalian trait to emerge and the animal survive the change. "Boobzilla" is a accurate representation of the evolutionary assertions. Congratulations on being the first person showing any capacity to even discuss the OP videos....even though you don't like it, congratulations anyways. Too bad you could not have offered decent conversation in the actual debate. Side: Jesus Christ
There had to be a critter like boobzilla somewhere along the line in the evolutionary progression story. Boobzilla is an accurate representation of that creature, except maybe the bra should have been white...or pink, but not blue. Blue is for boys........... Or correct me. Did mammals supposedly suddenly appear, with all the mammalian traits and no mixture of reptilian and mammalian traits such as in boobzilla? Is that what the first video is portraying, a sudden mutation of reptiles into mammals with all of the mammalian traits emerging at once and the new animal no longer displaying reptilian features such as cold blooded, scales instead of hair, and egg laying or live birth without nursing of the young? Side: Jesus Christ
science is what you can show me in a way I can observe it. A video that displays computer graphics causing one animal to merge into another animal is not science, it's make believe. Until you can show me a reptile changing into a mammal, it is not science for me to believe it happened. Evolution is conjecture of hypothesis, and cannot be shown scientifically. That's why they had to draw phony pictures to make movies to pretend like the morphing in the movie actually happened in slow motion over kamzillions of years. That's not science, and neither is the Geico cavemen actors strutting buck naked pretending to be missing links or Neanderthals. If "gradual changes" are viable to change reptiles into mammals and not just finches into different kind of finches which adapted to their environments......then Boobzilla is indeed an accurate portrayal of the evolutionary tail (or tale if you can't see the pun in the tail) If gradual changes are viable, then Boobzilla is viable and even necessary in the evolutionary spiel. Side: Jesus Christ
Evolution has been shown to many people who understand reality, so evolution is still science. The computer display showing one small meeting into another is the boobzilla video. Evolution has been shown scientifically. You can't call boobzilla accurate for the idea that everything was gradual and for the idea that everything wasn't gradual. How do you not see this? Side: Muhammad
What part of either video was not accurate in telling the story of evolution? Does evolution not teach that reptiles evolved into mammals after multi celled animals evolved from single cell animals? Both videos portray the "facts" of evolution accurately. If you don't like it, too bad....oh, one thing that was obviously a joke was in the video where the real life Geico insurance company t.v. commercial "cavemen" were walking buck naked pretending to be missing links or Neanderthals or whatever. Tell me that's not a joke.......the emperor has no clothes.........hahahhahhahhah give me a break..if that is not a joke, you have got to be kidding. Both videos are mockeries. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
0
points
He is obviously talking about Ali in his prime and not Ali now. In both of their primes Ali would beat the snot out of Jesus. The guy could make medicine sick, he could beat up a rock, he moved like a butterfly, and stung like a bee. Jesus couldn't handle that. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
He was one of the greatest if not the greatest boxer to ever live. Have you seen that one video where he is trapped in the corner and the guy throws like 10 punches at him and misses every single one because Ali was dodging them, then he does a little dance afterwards to acknowledge what just happened? Side: Muhammad
1
point
Mohammed was not a boxer, other than what you see in the film. Doesn't compare what Jesus did though. He beat about 100 Pharisees in a fist fight and all those Pharisees were like three weight classes heavier than Jesus. Obsessive or what. And Saintnow is just gonna try 'n' ban me, lol, come on, try it! Side: Jesus Christ
Mohammed was not a boxer, other than what you see in the film. Of course he was. He fought all over the world. The Thrilla in Manila is famous. Doesn't compare what Jesus did though. But, Jesus couldn't compare at boxing. He beat about 100 Pharisees in a fist fight and all those Pharisees were like three weight classes heavier than Jesus. Jesus weighed like 50 pounds soaking wet. They could have weighed 100 pounds. That's not impressive. And, I bet that number is exaggerated. And Saintnow is just gonna try 'n' ban me, lol, come on, try it! He is an idiot. He banned me from a debate, and responded to me telling me he didn't want me to respond. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
The average age was likely to be around 35, they weren't old geesers. That was old back then. One Pharisees is singular for the plural of 10 Pharisees. No it isn't. Just like one pi is singular for the plural of 10 pi. That doesn't mean that every time you see the word pi it makes sense to multiply it by 10. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
I just did cite them! I cited the entire internet! So I therefore had cited that as well! It is like me asking you to cite a website that proves that the colour blue is liked by a lot of people! You couldn't possibly, because it is found all over the internet! (Well, you could, but it would be VERY DIFFICULT to site them) Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
If it really is all over the internet, why does it seem hard for you to provide even one source? Side: Muhammad
1
point
You are getting mixed up with these thread by the way. It was on the other thread that we were talking about the big bang. On this thread we were talking about the tail-end of the age of death in Jesus's time. The thing is, this fact about 70 being the real tail end is so well known that it's ingrained in our knowledge to such a level that it is hard to find just one example of it, because it is implied EVERYWHERE to such a level that is subconscious. It is like finding a site that explains that the colour blue is a colour that goes well with calm moments, because it is known Everywhere SUBCONSCIOUSLY and is stated everywhere SUBCONSCIOUSLY. Same with the tail end of the age of the Pharisees being 70. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
It really is so well known as to be only known subconsciously. It is very difficult to find anything written on something is only known subconsciously. I have never seen anyone CONSCIOUSLY state that 70 is the tail end of the roman times of Jesus in Israel, but I have seen it stated SUBCONSCIOUSLY so many times. And thank you for implying that so many things are only so well known only to me! Yes there is a lot of things that most people don't have a clue about, that is only so well known to the create Eye of Blizzardbird. Thank you for your lexicological alchemy. Side: Jesus Christ
2
points
It really is so well known as to be only known subconsciously. It is very difficult to find anything written on something is only known subconsciously. Except it isn't, and things that well known are written about. I have never seen anyone CONSCIOUSLY state that 70 is the tail end of the roman times of Jesus in Israel, but I have seen it stated SUBCONSCIOUSLY so many times. And how can one "subconsciously" state that a specific number was the average life expectancy during a given period of time? And thank you for implying that so many things are only so well known only to me! I hope that is mean to be sarcastic, or at least said with full knowledge of the sarcasm that had been direct at you. Yes there is a lot of things that most people don't have a clue about, that is only so well known to the create Eye of Blizzardbird. Yeah, clearly. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
Do you know when you are going to die? No, I don't.
Yes, you do. Nope. But only subconsciously. No. There are certain things we just can't put into words, yet we are aware of them. And this isn't one of them, so provide your evidence. See what I mean by subconscious? Yes: Something that contradicts the actual definition, like usual. I tire of this Humpty Dumpty behavior. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
Your chemical properties within your brain enables you to know when you are going to die. Only in an incredibly limited number of situations, all of which involve the process of actively dying. I am not, and thus I can't tell. You are biological capable of subconsciously knowing through the mechanics of both body and brain when you are going to die, but only subconsciously. I would like to see even the smallest amount of scientific evidence for your claims. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
0
points
If I were to cite it, I would be citing all thousands of articles. I had deduced it from all the articles combined. I could reference a single article, but it just wouldn't work on it's own. When the evidence of all the articles are put together the case is proven, but if I was site them all then that would be a hefty task. One internet site equals one. However when all the evidence is put together it starts to equal the full figure of of those thousand articles. 1 does not equal 1000 when on it's own. But when 1 is multiplied with 1,000 it does. All those sites on their own do not merit evidence, but when they are all put together they do. It would be impossible to just cite even 100 of them and regard that as evidence in it's own merit, I would have to cite all 1,000 of them. 1000 is just a rough figure, btw, the I don't know what the real exact number of articles is. For all I know it could be 300, or 500,000, I just don't quite know. It's all easier when putting all this stuff into words. Of course you can't put into words something unconscious WITHOUT delving into the scientific, that is what I had meant. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
If I were to cite it, I would be citing all thousands of articles. No you really wouldn't, you would simply need to cite one. Just one. I had deduced it from all the articles combined. Then provide some of the aspects you deduced it from. I could reference a single article, but it just wouldn't work on it's own. Then reference three. If you are unable to substantiate your claims, then there is no point in taking them seriously, and thus no point in taking you seriously. When the evidence of all the articles are put together the case is proven, but if I was site them all then that would be a hefty task. So you seem to be claiming that you and you alone look at all of this evidence and came up with this deduction, that nobody else has ever come up with. Am I correct? Side: Muhammad
1
point
It would be impossible to just cite even 100 of them and regard that as evidence in it's own merit, I would have to cite all 1,000 of them. That is correct on your part, however. Good man. Indeed I am the only one who has come up with this excellent deduction. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
Why do you seem to like Mohammed? I liked him because of all the trash talking. He was a sociopathic liar. No he wasn't. He exaggerated quite a bit, but it was obvious that he couldn't do the stuff that he exaggerated, but it helped understand his ego. Of course he claims of being an expert boxer were all just lies. He was definitely a professional boxer. I am not sure he ever claimed to be an expert boxer. That's what is funny about all of his trash talking. He didn't say he was the best boxer, he said he floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee. It is the overwhelming majority of boxing experts who say Ali was one of the best boxers. Again, you may be thinking about how weak he looks today in his old age, but back in the 1960s and 70s he was very good. Jesus was the real king. Good thing he didn't get in the ring with Ali. He would go all over Ali and belt him to the floor. Well, yeah, if he fought Ali today. But, that's because Jesus can only beat up old people. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Sociopathic liars are experts at lying, so they are rarely caught. And they tell all sorts of unlikely stories and make them sound plausible. Oh the nerve of expert liars! Too bad that the moron Saintnow is not an expert liar! He is too dumb up his ass, it takes a high IQ to be an expert liar, Saintnow only has a low IQ! We are talking about the prophet MOhammad, not MUhammad ali. Side: Jesus Christ
Sociopathic liars are experts at lying, so they are rarely caught. But, how does video lie? You can find him on youtube beating people up. And they tell all sorts of unlikely stories and make them sound plausible. I don't know if anyone has ever said that saying you could make medicine sick sounded plausible. Too bad that the moron Saintnow is not an expert liar! Yes, he is an amateur. We are talking about the prophet MOhammad, not MUhammad ali. We are not. I am talking about Muhammad Ali, and you are talking about the prophet Mohammad. Side: Muhammad
1
point
It is possible to provide arguments that sound plausible to prove that it is possible to make medicine plausible. Think hard enough. I have just made it sound plausible right now. And you shouldn't be talking about MUhammed Ali the boxer, we should be talking about MOHammed Ali the prophet. Side: Jesus Christ
It is possible to provide arguments that sound plausible to prove that it is possible to make medicine plausible. No. Make medicine sick. Medicine does not have the capacity to catch a cold. I have just made it sound plausible right now. Nope. Leaving out a word makes a huge difference. And you shouldn't be talking about MUhammed Ali the boxer, we should be talking about MOHammed Ali the prophet. You responded to the guy who was clearly talking about Muhammad Ali the boxer. It is you who shouldn't be talking about the prophet. Side: Muhammad
1
point
What word have I missed out? It is fully possible for medicine which consists of natural biotic chemicals to catch a virus. Medicine is simply chemicals + DNA. It is fully possible to infect DNA and affect DNA via a virus. And secondly, I responded to a poster who at least seemed to be talking about the prophet and even if they were talking about the highly unknown boxer who I have only heard of on the news in the past EXTREMELY occasionally, they were in the wrong. Whoever it was, they should not have been talking about the boxer. Side: Jesus Christ
What word have I missed out? You left out the word sick. It is fully possible for medicine which consists of natural biotic chemicals to catch a virus. Medicine is simply chemicals + DNA. It is fully possible to infect DNA and affect DNA via a virus. Wow. You actually thought this through. Fair point. And secondly, I responded to a poster who at least seemed to be talking about the prophet and even if they were talking about the highly unknown boxer who I have only heard of on the news in the past EXTREMELY occasionally, they were in the wrong. 2 people knew he was talking about a boxer. Ali is one of the most famous boxers of all time. Just because you live under a rock doesn't make a famous boxer unknown to everyone else. Whoever it was, they should not have been talking about the boxer. It is called humor. I assume that and Muhammad Ali are relatively unknown to you. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
0
points
Ghostheadx only found out later that they were talking about the boxer, about the same time that I did. And Ghostheadx did not approve of those people talking about a boxer, he thought they were being rather stupid. So the only person who knew originally at the VERY START was just you, and not THREE, but only ONE (you). Now compare you, which is Cartman (you) to the rest of the entire population of this debate and see whether they knew AT FIRST that you were talking about the boxer. The vast majority on this thread didn't. And only you and AveSatanas approve of talking about the boxer, the rest of the thread don't approve whatsoever of talking about the boxer. *(Capitals used to highlight certain words, for clarification purposes). Side: Muhammad
Ghostheadx only found out later that they were talking about the boxer, about the same time that I did. No, he knew 4 days ago, and you only knew 2 days ago. And Ghostheadx did not approve of those people talking about a boxer, he thought they were being rather stupid. We are discussing whether you live under a rock for not knowing who Muhammad Ali was. So the only person who knew originally at the VERY START was just you, and not THREE, but only ONE (you). 100%. That's success. Now compare you, which is Cartman (you) to the rest of the entire population of this debate and see whether they knew AT FIRST that you were talking about the boxer. The vast majority on this thread didn't. We only know of 3 people who actually looked at his post. Of the 3 people who we can confirm looked at his post you are the only one who was fooled. And only you and AveSatanas approve of talking about the boxer, the rest of the thread don't approve whatsoever of talking about the boxer. I don't see your point. Just because you don't approve of talking about the boxer doesn't mean you didn't get massively fooled. Side: Jesus Christ
0
points
Ghostheadx had SUSPECTED four days ago, but he had only found out for sure about two days ago probably. Which was ABOUT the same time as me. And I didn't say we found out at EXACTLY the same time, I said around the same time. And even I had suspected that 4 days ago you may have meant the boxer. I just wasn't sure and just took your stupidity for granted. I find you rather arrogant. Side: Muhammad
Ghostheadx had SUSPECTED four days ago, but he had only found out for sure about two days ago probably. No, he suspected and knew 4 days ago. Which was ABOUT the same time as me. Yes, it took you a very long time, which is very bad since I kept telling you over and over. And even I had suspected that 4 days ago you may have meant the boxer. I literally called him a boxer. The fact that you only suspected it is not a great point. I just wasn't sure and just took your stupidity for granted. You were the one who admitted you didn't know the most famous boxer of all time. I find you rather arrogant. Sorry about that. If we keep talking will you change your mind like you did with Ali? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Ghostheadx meant what he had said "some people think they are referring to the prophet" in a sarcastic way. I don't think he really believed that people actually were referring to the boxer, in his mind I think he wasn't quite sure. I think he was being cutting and sarcastic about the matter. Of course I had knew about that pilly old boxer, all I had said was that I had BARELY ever heard about him except on the News at times. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
No one wants to debate with a guilty person. Those are the best people to debate against. It provides an easy win. Why do you think people wouldn't debate guilty people? You clearly like me. You do make me look good. But, you are incredibly dumb so, no, I don't like you. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Guilty people are not the most pleasant people to debate against. You will repeat that, thank you. And don't be so cheeky. I'm daring you to be a thick. How do I make you look good? State the name of one person who thinks you are actually intelligent. You seem to be on par with Saintnow or Sarah Palin. Maybe not quite Anne Coulter, but that's another story. Side: Muhammad
2
points
1
point
1
point
Guilty people are not the most pleasant people to debate against. You haven't been the most pleasant to debate against, but I still get pleasure out of it. How do I make you look good? You say the stupidest shit, so everything I say sounds much smarter. You seem to be on par with Saintnow or Sarah Palin. Are you now calling me Sarah Palin after I brought her up first? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
Just more lies. Ok. I am sorry that I took you seriously when you said you forgot. I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you are going to admit that you were just telling lives I won't argue with you. I feel quite tired right now. Come on, say something to keep me awake, please. Ugh. Well, maybe it is because you are a bird brain and it is really dark from having your head up your ass. If you pull your head out of your ass maybe you will be less sleepy. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
You are the one telling lies. I speak the truth man. Just listen. Quote a lie please. You say that you are in agreement then all of the sudden you tell of sorts of lies and then retract. Bullshit. That's what you did. I have been saying the same thing. I have not changed my position at all. You are saying some things that are wrong and some things that are right. I have corrected all of the things you said that were wrong while agreeing with what you said that is right. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
One lie you had told me was that the famous Muhammed Ali had been all over the world and has become famous for his Prophetic Quotes as well as making a voyage that went on for decades all the way from the desert in the middle east right up to Europe and that he was also a boxer. I think you are confusing him with the prophet Mohammed. Side: Muhammad
One lie you had told me was that the famous Muhammed Ali had been all over the world and has become famous for his Prophetic Quotes No. I told you he was famous for boxing and trash talking. Trash talking is not prophetic. as well as making a voyage that went on for decades all the way from the desert in the middle east right up to Europe I didn't say anything like that. You need to see a doctor. The first use of the word voyage and desert are in your post. I think you are confusing him with the prophet Mohammed. I would agree that anyone who said those things would be confusing him. Unfortunately for you, no one fucking said anything like that you stupid forgetful fucko. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
"I didn't say anything like that. You need to see a doctor. The first use of the word voyage and desert are in your post." So you are now focusing on a post I had made previously where I had corrected you about the places where the BOXER travelled and I said that the Boxer did not travel in the Desert? Well, when I said "The boxer was not the one who travelled in the desert, your response was "Well, yes, he did". So although you may not have outright stated that "the boxer travelled in the desert", you did signify that you did believe so. I feel you are yet again being even more pedantic. What is this with all this sematics, them telling me what constitutes a correct word? You are drawing attention to my posts to drag attention away from your own, for obvious fears, of course. Stop being manipulative and you won't feel such fear anymore. Side: Muhammad
So you are now focusing on a post I had made previously where I had corrected you about the places where the BOXER travelled and I said that the Boxer did not travel in the Desert? We never once discussed where the boxer traveled. You need to see a doctor about your hallucinations. To prove that we never had this conversation I pointed out that you have not used the word desert anywhere in this debate. How can we have discussed him traveling through the desert without using the word desert? Well, when I said "The boxer was not the one who travelled in the desert, your response was "Well, yes, he did". That conversation never happened. You need to see a doctor. So although you may not have outright stated that "the boxer travelled in the desert", you did signify that you did believe so. I agree that if I answered that way you can say I said it, but you never asked that question. What is this with all this sematics, them telling me what constitutes a correct word? Not the correct word, the actual word. If you never used those words how could we have had the conversation? You are drawing attention to my posts to drag attention away from your own, for obvious fears, of course. I drag attention to your posts because they are filled with lies and hallucinations. Stop being manipulative and you won't feel such fear anymore. Stop believing the voices in your head and you won't be confused any more. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I highly doubt Cartman has expressed any desire to debate with any link. And a link can't be guilty. I disagree with how you use your analogy. A guilty person is obviously a bad person and only toxic, nobody wants to debate with somebody who is toxic. A link within itself is not toxic, it is just a load of text or images which you are actually incapable of talking to. Side: Muhammad
1
point
....What are you talking about. The words "link" in blue are hyperlinks to the cited evidence. Click on them. I never said that cartman wanted to debate with a link, nor did I say that a link was guilty. I disagree with how you use your analogy. I made no analogy. A guilty person is obviously a bad person and only toxic, nobody wants to debate with somebody who is toxic. That isn't true at all. Just because someone is guilty does not mean they are a bad person, or are toxic, and there are plenty of people who want to debate with those who are toxic (I can provide yet more evidence if you'd like, because I am able to substantiate my claims). A link within itself is not toxic, it is just a load of text or images which you are actually incapable of talking to. So click on the link next time so your response isn't so ridiculous :P Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
You should have failed to separate the word link from your sentence. You should have said "I want to debate with the guilty, link", or "I want to debate with the guilty - link", you have failed to separate the word link with the most simple punctuation. So therefore you have caused me to assume you meant that a link was guilty, you're fault, not mine. And that link doesn't prove anything, it is just a link to the exact page that we are actually debating on. And yes, someone has to be bad to be guilty. Guilty means your motives were wrong, it is impossible to have truly bad motives unless you are a bad person. Now provide some evidence. I have clicked on the link and it doesn't link to anything at all. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You should have failed to separate the word link from your sentence. You should have said "I want to debate with the guilty, link", or "I want to debate with the guilty - link", you have failed to separate the word link with the most simple punctuation. Okay, this is very simple: When posting, hit "show help" and look at the hyperlink function. Then go back and look at my post and you will understand what those "Links" were. So therefore you have caused me to assume you meant that a link was guilty, you're fault, not mine. Normally I believe the responsibility of a message lies with the sender. However, your conclusion was so logically disconnected that I really do not accept fault for that. And that link doesn't prove anything, it is just a link to the exact page that we are actually debating on. Exactly. It proves that I am debating (and thus clearly wanted to) you, and so is Cartman. And yes, someone has to be bad to be guilty. No, they don't. Guilty means your motives were wrong, it is impossible to have truly bad motives unless you are a bad person. Guilty: justly chargeable with a particular fault or error. The nature of this fault or error can be very, very different. For example: Someone could be "guilty" of violating a very real law regarding sending falsehoods over text messages or emails. Now, this law really isn't ever enforced, but many are still guilty of violating it. That does not mean they are bad, or their motives were necessarily bad. I have clicked on the link and it doesn't link to anything at all And yet right above you told me what the link led to. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
You should have told me where the help facility was in order to figure out what that link thing meant if you couldn't bother to explain it. I'm new here so I ought to be welcomed, like a king who is taking his first ever visit to a new country! Still don't quite know how this link feature works within THIS particular site. Cartman as well as you claimed that I was guilty but they still wanted to debate with me. What this was telling me was that since you and him still wanted to debate with me, you and him didn't really believe that I was guilty, since you can't debate with a guilty man, nor does anyone really want to. Guilty means you ought to be charged or punished for a wrong doing, according to the dictionary, it means you are culpable. You can only ever deserve to be hurt and tortured if you do something with a bad motive. And only bad people have bad motives. Now let me see who has a bad motive on this site here. The link didn't really link to any other site, or anything worthwhile, so it might as well be regarded as not linking to anything at all. You need to link my words together a bit better, although you aren't quite as bad as young Cartman. Side: Muhammad
2
points
You should have told me where the help facility was in order to figure out what that link thing meant if you couldn't bother to explain it. I assumed that anyone who has been on the internet could recognize what the blue of a hyperlink is. Still don't quite know how this link feature works within THIS particular site. The same way hyperlinks work everywhere else. Cartman as well as you claimed that I was guilty but they still wanted to debate with me. What this was telling me was that since you and him still wanted to debate with me, you and him didn't really believe that I was guilty That does not logically follow. We think you are guilty, and we are debating you, which means you can debate with a guilty man and we clearly want to. It makes no sense to assume your premise must be right and we are lying, as opposed to your premise simply being wrong. Guilty means you ought to be charged or punished for a wrong doing, according to the dictionary, it means you are culpable. You can only ever deserve to be hurt and tortured if you do something with a bad motive. And only bad people have bad motives. That's a non-sequitur that I literally just addressed in the previous comment. The link didn't really link to any other site, or anything worthwhile, so it might as well be regarded as not linking to anything at all. Again, you already addressed what it linked to and how that served the purposes I used it for. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
No, I put hyperlinks within parentheses, which would mean that the grammatical flow of the sentence is not as you have presented. And I have already given you the definition of guilty and my issue with your mischaracterization of that word. I even gave you a clear analogy. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
I didn't say that a guilty person is hard to debate with, I said that they can be unpleasant to debate with. Regardless of whether a guilty person is hard or easy to debate with, doesn't change the fact that is useless to argue with someone who is clearly in denial and is guilty of evil. Some serial killers are recorded to have I.Qs as low as 75, while one has even had been recorded to have an IQ of 210. Guilty doesn't mean dumb or smart, necessarily. And I never called any of you guilty, I was surmising that "someone" is guilty, clearly, whoever that might be, but it aint me. I'm still wondering, boyo. Side: Muhammad
I didn't say that a guilty person is hard to debate with, I said that they can be unpleasant to debate with. Oh, sorry that I misrepresented your statement so horribly. Do you find us unpleasant to debate with? Regardless of whether a guilty person is hard or easy to debate with, doesn't change the fact that is useless to argue with someone who is clearly in denial and is guilty of evil. Missing the point I see. Would you say that I or Trumpshair are in denial? Some serial killers are recorded to have I.Qs as low as 75, while one has even had been recorded to have an IQ of 210. I can't believe I asked such a difficult question. Guilty doesn't mean dumb or smart, necessarily. It doesn't actually make sense at all in this debate, but I tried to use language you would understand. I can't believe it failed. I honestly thought you would have been able to understand what I asked. And I never called any of you guilty, I was surmising that "someone" is guilty, clearly, whoever that might be, but it aint me. I understand that you have never called us guilty, but do you want to? I'm still wondering, boyo. It took you that long to not give an answer? Dang. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not very familiar with saying and quotes are you? No, I am quite familiar with actual sayings, I am just not familiar with your sayings. Also, it is quite clear that you aren't actually familiar with those sayings either because you can't actually explain them. You trucked up little spoon, Hey stupid forgetful fucko. Dumb forgetful fucko didn't quite roll off the tongue any more. I think it's about time I fling ya to the kitchen floor like a hot baked potato! Oh, I get it now. You eat off the floor and picked up some kind of brain eating bacteria. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Too naïve to have heard of the phrase, "to drop like a hot potato"? It means that you quickly drop whatever problem or thing down to the ground because it is so hot that you desperately drop it immediately without a second thought. In other words, you drop it with earnestness. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Re-arranging words to discredit my right to banter around with others? Whether I said "Like a hot potato, boy, like a hot potato I fling ya to the floor" or "I drop you like a hot potato" Still wasn't wrong to say it. I'm still not gonna say to you "I'll let you be the judge". Not yet. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You are just trying to wiggle your way out of this one, aren't you? You Implied that there was something wrong with the saying that I had said. It was a saying, not a Quote, unlike what you had stated, anyway, so you got that wrong, yourself. You seem to be attempting to put me down based on the fact that I had used a certain saying. Side: Muhammad
1
point
What is also quite pathetic is that you find it funny to imagine Jesus having a fist fight with Ali Muhammed the boxer. What's so funny about that? Unless of course you imagine that Ryan Giggs is having a fistfight and a football match with Moses, as you hear, "let my football go!". You find that FUNNY?!? HANHAHAHAHAHA You are a weird joke within yourself, Cartman. Side: Muhammad
1
point
That joke made you happy? What a bad thing of me to do. I want to make you upset, how thrilling. Lets tell you something that won't. You have no real job nor any application in work life, so don't boast about having some degree. Now go find a job in the sex industry, even then you know you would fail. Just to make you nice and sad and upset, I told you that! There is a man named Ali Mohammed and Ali Muhammed. I was expecting a discussion about Mohammed due to the fact that I felt they had spelt Muhammed by accident. Normally when people say Muhammed, they say the full name of Ali Muhammed, not just the last name, unless someone had previously stated his name in a sports context. Side: Muhammad
That joke made you happy? No, your joke about Moses didn't make me particularly happy. What a bad thing of me to do. So, you admit to hating to see people be happy? I want to make you upset, how thrilling. At this point I would really be upset if this conversation ended and you agreed with everything I have said. You have no real job nor any application in work life, so don't boast about having some degree. I have a job, and several degrees. Why would this bother me? Now go find a job in the sex industry, even then you know you would fail. Oh no, I would fail as a sex worker. You really got me there. Just to make you nice and sad and upset, I told you that! Oh no. So sad. There is a man named Ali Mohammed and Ali Muhammed. No. There is a guy named Muhammad Ali, and another named Muhammad. I was expecting a discussion about Mohammed due to the fact that I felt they had spelt Muhammed by accident. You shouldn't have expected a discussion about Muhammad or Mohammad when you responded to a guy talking about Muhammad Ali. There is only one person in history known as Muhammad Ali. He was a boxer. Normally when people say Muhammed AveSatanas said Muhammad Ali. He didn't say Muhammad. He said Muhammad Ali. You responded to a post with Muhammad Ali in it, not Muhammad. they say the full name of Ali Muhammed, You are the only one on Earth who has ever called the prophet Muhammad Ali Muhammad. No one has ever called the boxer Ali Muhammad. He is always called Muhammad Ali. not just the last name I will easily defeat you. Look up. Is the name Ali in the title of this debate? unless someone had previously stated his name in a sports context. Muhammad Ali was such a spectacular boxer that even without a sports context people know you are talking about him when you say Muhammad Ali. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad No where did it say his name was Mohammed, it says it was muhammed. So no letter would be replaced in the first place. His name isn't Mohammed, like you had wrongly called him. I thought it was Mohammed only because you had called him Mohammed. So it's your fault. The prophet is Muhammed, not Mohammed and neither is the boxer called Mohammed. They are both called Muhammed. Liar. You pretended both names were interchangeable, they aren't. Side: Muhammad
No where did it say his name was Mohammed, it says it was muhammed. So no letter would be replaced in the first place. I used o and u interchangeably. Sorry. I did not try to trick you by using o or u. How many times will I have to tell you that it had nothing to do with using o or u, it had everything to do with the name Ali? His name isn't Mohammed, like you had wrongly called him. His name also wasn't Ali Muhammad like you wrongly called him. Which mistake was more unreasonable? I thought it was Mohammed only because you had called him Mohammed. I never called the boxer Mohammad. So it's your fault. No, it isn't. I intentionally didn't even use Muhammad or Mohammad and just mentioned the boxer by Ali so you would get that I wasn't talking about the prophet Muhammad. The prophet is Muhammed, not Mohammed and neither is the boxer called Mohammed. They are both called Muhammed. Wrong. The prophet is called Muhammad, and the boxer is called Muhammad Ali. Liar. I am not lying to you. You pretended both names were interchangeable, they aren't. Except, you admit that they are. You knew I was talking about the prophet Muhammad when I said Mohammad. And, every time I said Mohammad I was referring to the prophet Muhammad. I never mentioned the boxer as Muhammad. I only ever referred to him as Ali or Muhammad Ali. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
First of all. To clear things up. The prophet Mohammed can be called both MOhammed and MUhammed. However, you denied this. While the boxer can only be called MUhammed. Seems like you have told another lie yet again. I don't listen to liars. You have claimed the comment about the prophet and not the boxer prophet joke was from ghostheadx. You had said that he had replaced the word MOhammed with MUhammed to as a joke. No, it isn't invalid nor a joke to say that. Both can be called MUhammed, so to say that using the word MUhammed as a joke by replacing the letter O with U is stupid, since it is actually valid to call him MUhammed, both of them. It's all clear to me now. Side: Muhammad
First of all. To clear things up. Stop clearing things up. You are the one who isn't clear about anything. The prophet Mohammed can be called both MOhammed and MUhammed. I agree. Let's move on. However, you denied this. No, I did not you stupid forgetful fucko. You denied this. While the boxer can only be called MUhammed. True. But, without Ali on the end of his name it will be confusing. Seems like you have told another lie yet again. No, I did not. I haven't told any lies. I don't listen to liars. Your problem is that you don't listen at all. You have claimed the comment about the prophet and not the boxer prophet joke was from ghostheadx. No. I did not say what ghostheadx said was a joke. You said that. You had said that he had replaced the word MOhammed with MUhammed to as a joke. I did not say that at all. No, it isn't invalid nor a joke to say that. I know that. I have only ever said that what AveSatanas said was a joke. You acknowledged this, then got mad at me for not backing down (another misinterpretation by you), and now you are back to not remembering what you figured out yesterday. Both can be called MUhammed, so to say that using the word MUhammed as a joke by replacing the letter O with U is stupid, since it is actually valid to call him MUhammed, both of them. The joke was when AveSatanas added the name Ali to the name Muhammad to refer to the boxer. No one tried to trick anyone by changing the u into an o. Stop saying that someone tried doing that. It's all clear to me now. No, it isn't. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
I am glad you now confess to moving on that you finally agree. Lets hope next time you keep your posts straight forward instead of jumping around in circles going on about what constitutes humour. You need to stop being pedantic. Humour is not found in monotony and pedantry. There is nothing funny about using a different word to get your point across, nothing odd or strange about it. It's normal to use different words to describe things, so don't tell me off for rephrasing my previous statements and stop responding with more pedantry. I'm sick of this semantics. There is nothing funny about using the word MOhammed instead of MUhammed. There is no need to mock of laugh at people. You seem to believe that mockery is somehow a good solution to humour, it isn't. Have a nice day and keep your chin up. Side: Muhammad
Lets hope next time you keep your posts straight forward instead of jumping around in circles going on about what constitutes humour. Stop telling me I did the things that you did. Humour is not found in monotony and pedantry. That's why you aren't funny at all. There is nothing funny about using a different word to get your point across, nothing odd or strange about it. No one did that. It's normal to use different words to describe things, so don't tell me off for rephrasing my previous statements and stop responding with more pedantry. I'm sick of this semantics. You have never once addressed my argument. You just keep repeating your own false argument and claiming I made it. There is nothing funny about using the word MOhammed instead of MUhammed Then stop fucking saying it you stupid forgetful fucko. No one here said that was funny. No one here did that. Shut the fuck up. There is no need to mock of laugh at people. If they don't listen then you might as well. You seem to believe that mockery is somehow a good solution to humour, it isn't. No, I think mockery is a good solution to talking with you stupid fucks. Have a nice day and keep your chin up. See ya. Try to keep your chin and your whole head out of your ass. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
"Then stop fucking saying it you stupid forgetful fucko. No one here said that was funny. No one here did that. Shut the fuck up." Well, if it wasn't funny, then it weren't a joke like you claimed it was. What's your point? "No it wasn't" No it isn't" You are only good at denials. Side: Muhammad
Well, if it wasn't funny, then it weren't a joke like you claimed it was. You stupid fucking idiot. You just quoted me telling you it wasn't a joke. I did not claim that replacing the o and u were a joke. That was you. What's your point? My point is that you are dumb for claiming I do the things that you do. You are only good at denials. You aren't good at anything. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
You have 3 things needed for what he said to be a joke and none of them included you thinking it was a joke. Avesatanas said the Muhammad Ali could beat the hell out of Jesus. Why would you confuse yourself by calling the boxer Muhammad? Call him Muhammad Ali like everyone else so you don't get confused. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Exactly, so I am right to say that AveSatanas was not joking. Now can you admit it? Or if not, try to accept it. I never said anyone was joking, it was you who insisted it at first. Now we are both "in agreement" all of a sudden? Well, just admit that you originally held and incorrect view and that I am proven right. Why should we have to avoid confusing with names when instead we can simply avoid talking about some silly boxer? Side: Muhammad
You already proved he did make a joke. You never said every joke had to be considered a joke by you. Why would I admit to the exact opposite of what I just told you? At first I said Avesatanas was joking. You then made the ridiculous claim that I said ghostheadx was joking. We have always been in agreement. The problem is that you disagree with yourself. I never held an incorrect view. You have already agreed that you have had the incorrect view. Don't join a thread about boxers if you don't want to talk about boxers. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
Aren't you going to provide a quote to prove this? For what reason would I somehow claim that ghostheadx was joking? I said he was making some vague sarcastic comment about people who thought that the thread was about the boxer. While you claimed that both of them were making a joke about the names of the boxers. Side: Muhammad
1
point
First, when you quote someone word for word that person should be able to ctrl+f on the debate and find the argument where they used those words. If that was actually a quote from me, how come I can't find where I actually said it? Second, that proved nothing. You are trying to prove that I said that 2 different posts were a joke and the fake quote you claim I made only describes me thinking one post was a joke. Try again? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
I can't quote word for word. Don't be stupid. I don't know the exact words you had said. Of course you are going to come up with some stupid claim next, like "Then don't say that I had said this etc," or, "then don't make this stuff up, bla bla bla. Most people remember what you had said. You claimed both were joking, so you could back up your claim that they weren't implying that the discussion shouldn't be about the boxer. When did I claim that they were joking? Why did I feel the need to claim that they were both joking? What was I trying to prove? Try to be specific. Side: Muhammad
I can't quote word for word. Don't be stupid. Of course you fucking can. It is a website. Just highlight what I wrote and copy paste. All of our interactions are written down. It is very easy to quote me. I don't know the exact words you had said. Well, the fake quote you gave me isn't even close to something I said. Of course you are going to come up with some stupid claim next, like "Then don't say that I had said this etc," or, "then don't make this stuff up, bla bla bla. If you constantly make up fake bullshit it is ok for me to say "don't make this stuff up, bla bla bla." Most people remember what you had said. Yeah, and I didn't say what you claim. You claimed both were joking, so you could back up your claim that they weren't implying that the discussion shouldn't be about the boxer. So, you got caught not being able to back up your claim yet again. Why did I feel the need to claim that they were both joking? I have no idea why you do half the dumb shit you do. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Well, the fake quote you gave me isn't even close to something I said. Really? I think it is. These for example: He was making fun of the idea that you can only compare Jesus to the prophet Muhammad. I already explained it to you. He was making fun of the idea that you can only compare Jesus to the prophet Muhammad. I already explained it to you. _ When did I ever claim that both AveSatanas and ghostheadx were joking? Side: Muhammad
Really? I think it is. And since you are a fucking idiot you came to the wrong conclusion. Your example(s) show that I did not consider it to be changing the name. Your example proves that I understand what was actually going on. Your example doesn't sound anything like the previous fake one. Your fake quote made it sound like anybody but you considers Muhammad Ali to be the name of the prophet Muhammad. No one thinks that. Your fake quote also makes it sound like I thought there was a name change. Your example shows that I thought he was talking about different people. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Your example(s) show that I did not consider it to be changing the name. Your example proves that I understand what was actually going on. Your example doesn't sound anything like the previous fake one. Your fake quote made it sound like anybody but you considers Muhammad Ali to be the name of the prophet Muhammad. No one thinks that. Your fake quote also makes it sound like I thought there was a name change. Your example shows that I thought he was talking about different people. All of those quotes, do actually. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
It shouldn't be "they're self explanatory". It should actually be "there, self explanatory". It's a comma, not an apostrophe that was missing. And there was no letter changes, as yet again it isn't MOhammed to MUhammed. It's not "there to theY're". Why do you like changing letters? OCD much? Side: Jesus Christ
It shouldn't be "they're self explanatory". It should actually be "there, self explanatory". If you said that sentence with your self explanatory statements it would make sense to use the second one. If you are responding to my question it makes more sense to say they are self explanatory as a response. And there was no letter changes, as yet again it isn't MOhammed to MUhammed. It's not "there to theY're". Why do you like changing letters? OCD much? Did you ignore an entire half of my argument? Avoid stuff much? Why would I spell the word "they're" wrong just to avoid adding a letter? The person who keeps noticing the letter changes is the one who has OCD by the way. Side: Muhammad
1
point
If you said that sentence with your self explanatory statements it would make sense to use the second one. If you are responding to my question it makes more sense to say they are self explanatory as a response. Really? How is it self explanatory? Just read my quotes, abracadabra, there, self explanatory. (Just a more rhetorical version of "they're self explanatory.) Got it? Did you ignore an entire half of my argument? Avoid stuff much? Why would I spell the word "they're" wrong just to avoid adding a letter? The person who keeps noticing the letter changes is the one who has OCD by the way. I never said you actually misspelled anything. Just saying that you thought of the wrong sentence. Take chill pill, I was just kidding. Humour, this is humour mate, this is real humour. Forget what AveSatanas/Ghostheadx said. That aint true humour. Side: Jesus Christ
Really? How is it self explanatory? Just read my quotes, abracadabra, there, self explanatory. (Just a more rhetorical version of "they're self explanatory.) Got it? No, I don't get it. You just proved I was right. "there, self explanatory" only makes sense when you precede it with "Just read my quotes, abracadabra,". You didn't have that before, so I was right about my correction. I never said you actually misspelled anything. Just saying that you thought of the wrong sentence. You wanted me to misspell they're so that I wouldn't add a y to please you. I asked you why you wanted me to misspell something, how does that mean you accused me of misspelling something? Take chill pill, I was just kidding. So, even when I don't use any strong language you are afraid of me? Humour, this is humour mate, this is real humour. Forget what AveSatanas/Ghostheadx said. That aint true humour. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HUMOR IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which part was a joke? Saying I have OCD? How is that a joke? If you have the OCD, telling me I have OCD isn't a joke. Or, was something else a joke? Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You wanted me to misspell they're so that I wouldn't add a y to please you. I asked you why you wanted me to misspell something, how does that mean you accused me of misspelling something? You said that I wanted you to misspell something. In other words, I tried to make it out like you had misspelled something. In other words, you are basically saying that I had accused you of misspelling something. See the link between the two? So, even when I don't use any strong language you are afraid of me? Nah. I'm as cool as a cucumber. Sit down, relax and enjoy the sun. Come on, don't be afraid, take a chill pill. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HUMOR IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which part was a joke? Saying I have OCD? How is that a joke? If you have the OCD, telling me I have OCD isn't a joke. Or, was something else a joke? I said I had OCD? Lol. Nevertheless, I was just joking about you having OCD as well as how you picked the wrong sentence. That was funny. As opposed to making it out like everyone was someone misspelling Mohammed's name when they weren't. Which is not funny. Side: Jesus Christ
You said that I wanted you to misspell something. Yes, you wanted me to spell "they're" as "the're" so that I didn't add a y. In other words, I tried to make it out like you had misspelled something. No, that does not logically follow. If you wanted me to do something it implies that I didn't do that thing yet. In other words, you are basically saying that I had accused you of misspelling something. See the link between the two? No, I use logic. Nah. I'm as cool as a cucumber. Sit down, relax and enjoy the sun. Come on, don't be afraid, take a chill pill. I am on a chill pill and you still need me to chill. You are very afraid. I said I had OCD? Lol. Your reading comprehension is terrible, or you are an overwhelming narcissist. No, you did not directly say that you had OCD. I didn't say that you said you had OCD. That was funny. It shouldn't be for the reasons I stated. As opposed to making it out like everyone was someone misspelling Mohammed's name when they weren't. Which is not funny. Yeah, dumb fuck. That's why you should stop saying that. You stupid forgetful fucko. You are the only one saying that people were misspelling his name. You keep attacking yourself, and you keep bringing it up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Fuck, the chill pill wore off. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Yes, you wanted me to spell "they're" as "the're" so that I didn't add a y. The words you used were grammatically correct, you can't misspell something if it is grammatically correct. You merely thought of the wrong sentence, not the wrong grammar. But I repeat myself. No, that does not logically follow. If you wanted me to do something it implies that I didn't do that thing yet. "Wanted" is past tense. I had supposedly "wanted" you to misspell something according to you because my supposed desire to want you to misspell something happened in the past. "Want" doesn't mean it had happened in the past. "Want" means I want something to be case. "I want this chair to be black". "I want this chair to be black now". "Want" can be used in the present tense, walnut, such as "I want this chair to be black now". "I want it to be that you have misspelled something right now". Get it right. Doesn't mean it has happened in the future. "I wanted it to be the case that you had misspelled something". You are a serious idiot, yourself. I am on a chill pill and you still need me to chill. You are very afraid Lol, you aint chilled out, you got issues. Why you care about how others feel? I have nothing to be afraid of. "Your reading comprehension is terrible, or you are an overwhelming narcissist. No, you did not directly say that you had OCD. I didn't say that you said you had OCD." You asked me which part of the joke was funny and you said that since I had OCD it wouldn't be funny for me to accuse you of having OCD. But why would you say I have OCD if I had never said I had OCD? So you are saying you know that I have OCD without me having to mention it? Who put you on such a pedestal? You must be a nutter thinking you can psycho-analyse others. Of all the world whose a narcissistic, rofl! Yeah, dumb fuck. That's why you should stop saying that. You stupid forgetful fucko. You are the only one saying that people were misspelling his name. You keep attacking yourself, and you keep bringing it up. What the fuck is wrong with you? Fuck, the chill pill wore off. Really? I don't ever remember saying I misspelled his name. I think that could actually be you. I remember saying that you thought some poster was joking about how "MUhammed" was a misspelling of "MOhammed" as a ploy to divert from the fact that he was merely saying that posters shouldn't be talking about the boxer. No where did he ever joke that MOhammed was misspelled. Why do you always imply that it was somehow ME who had made it out like I believed MOhammed couldn't be spelt as MUhammed? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
That was quick. I can't believe you were able to say something and quickly determine what you said was a dumb statement. Way to go. Whenever I say something, you also go out of your way and say "Oh, look, your implying that X or X of your own comment is X or X, bla bla bla". No, I don't constantly criticise my own words, nor do I get your sarcasm. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
You can't decide what is a joke. You can't decide if Wikipedia supports you. You can't decide if it is ok to derail an argument, or just express your beliefs. You can't decide if it is ok to use a similar word if the new word has an extra letter in it. You can't decide what language is strict. You can't decide what is controlling. I am sure there are others. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You can't decide what is a joke. You can't decide if Wikipedia supports you. You can't decide if it is ok to derail an argument, or just express your beliefs. You can't decide if it is ok to use a similar word if the new word has an extra letter in it. You can't decide what language is strict. You can't decide what is controlling. I am sure there are others. I am a very confused individual, I can't decide. Shall I go to sleep soon? I just can't make up my mindsszzzZZZZzzzzz ZZZZZ Side: Jesus Christ
And ghostheadx wouldn't have made such a joke unless it had a context to it. You assume that ghostheadx was making some kind of joke. And AveSatanas is ghostheadx, btw. You think they are the same person. A joke has to have some basis of truth in it, but has to have an element that isn't, i.e. imagination. This applies perfectly to what Avesatanas said. A joke has to have imagination and be funny in some sort of way, to at least somebody. Avesatanas thought his joke was funny, so it fits your definition. A joke has to have imagination. A joke has to be funny to at least somebody. A joke has to have real context about something stated to actually exist, except is twisted round. These all fit what Avesatanas said. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
This applies perfectly to what Avesatanas said This proves my point. Avesatanas thought his joke was funny, so it fits your definition. This proves my point. You assume that ghostheadx was making some kind of joke. When did I ever say that? Ghostheadx is the same person as AveSatanas, but a different account. When did I ever say that ghostheadx had made a joke while posting under that account? Side: Muhammad
This proves my point. It proves my point that you think what he said is a joke. How does your definition of a joke fitting perfectly for Avesatanas prove your point that you don't think what he said was a joke. When did I ever say that? I quoted you. Please explain how your quote doesn't imply that what he said was a joke. Ghostheadx is the same person as AveSatanas, but a different account. No evidence of this. No reasoning for this has ever been given. When did I ever say that ghostheadx had made a joke while posting under that account? You kept claiming that someone thought it was a joke. Since I repeatedly told you it wasn't me that thought it was a joke it must be you who thought it was a joke. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are just trying to be smart by making simple statements. Make up your mind. Am I always complicating things, or do I make simple statements? You just make simplistic comments without actually connecting them together. False. You are not worth speaking to. And yet, here we are. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Your simple statements always baffle me, your simplistic statements makes it complicated to explain things to you which you should already understand. You repeat the same thing and it becomes a complicated trip to figure out what the hell is causing you not to understand the point I am making, as you constantly repeat yourself. Do the maths for yourself. Side: Muhammad
Your simple statements always baffle me Further proof that you are a fucking idiot. your simplistic statements makes it complicated to explain things to you which you should already understand. You aren't supposed to do any explaining. You are supposed to be doing the listening because you are the one who is lost. You repeat the same thing and it becomes a complicated trip to figure out what the hell is causing you not to understand the point I am making Your point is wrong. Do the maths for yourself. You are lazy and dumb? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Don't tell me who to listen to. I listen and decide how I judge others, don't tell me to do the listening. I have listened to your rubbish and now I judge and condemn you. You are the one who has lost his case. I will not do the thinking for you, because you are the one who is in fact too lazy to do it himself. Side: Muhammad
Don't tell me who to listen to. Poor choice, miss. You could have gone from stupid fucko to just fucko. I listen and decide how I judge others, don't tell me to do the listening. You haven't listened to a single thing I said. I have listened to your rubbish and now I judge and condemn you. Oh no. Being condemned by a complete moron means so much to me. You are the one who has lost his case. Sounds like someone hates being right. I will not do the thinking for you, because you are the one who is in fact too lazy to do it himself. I have all the thinking on my side. That's why I was hoping you would listen to me. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
0
points
I have provided very good arguments that weren't insults. You have actually proven you don't know what is funny, our even what a joke is. Jokes are usually funny because they are unexpected and go against the widely held beliefs of people. The more people find something to be the default accepted scenario the dinner it is to hear something that doesn't match that scenario. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
How was what I had said not unexpected? Why? Were most people expecting me to make a comment based on whether a lion has stripes that look like a zebra? You are a moron! Of course it is an incorrect statement to say that a lion looks like a Zebra. Many jokes have incorrect statements in them. Otherwise it wouldn't be a joke. Was the fact that it is possible to compare Jesus to the boxer against what most people believe in? Most people didn't have any beliefs in the matter, so it wasn't possible to go against what most people believed. And I tend to go by the assumption that what people say they mean, is what people actually mean. Unless they are being sarcastic. Side: Muhammad
How was what I had said not unexpected? It was just a false statement. People make false statements all the time. Were most people expecting me to make a comment based on whether a lion has stripes that look like a zebra? I think most people are expecting people to be wrong about stuff. You are a moron! Is that your argument? So, you thought what you said was funny? Of course it is an incorrect statement to say that a lion looks like a Zebra. Incorrect statements and the unexpected are different. Many jokes have incorrect statements in them. But, if it is just an incorrect statement then it isn't a joke. If it is an incorrect statement that fits in with accepted reality it becomes unexpected. Was the fact that it is possible to compare Jesus to the boxer against what most people believe in? Yes. How many times will this have to be explained to you. Most people didn't have any beliefs in the matter This isn't true, and goes against your earlier arguments. so it wasn't possible to go against what most people believed. You have already freely admitted that it goes against what people believed. And I tend to go by the assumption that what people say they mean, is what people actually mean. This is clearly a lie. I have told you over and over again exactly what I mean and you still think I am saying something else. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
You aren't listening at all, are you? You may have expected something wrong to be stated, but you weren't expecting that PARTICULAR wrong statement were you? Get it right. Something can be funny. Do you like tickles? Try asking your dog to tickle you, then you will know what I mean by funny! Side: Muhammad
You aren't listening at all, are you? Really? I perfectly explain exactly what the right answer is and are going to accuse me of not listening? You may have expected something wrong to be stated, but you weren't expecting that PARTICULAR wrong statement were you? That is irrelevant. People other than you are able to think about what they hear before reacting. In order to be funny it has to be unexpected even after hearing it. If you can get the person to expect something before hand you can increase the humor factor. You didn't do anything to have me expect anything from you. Get it right. You are trying to figure out my explanation of jokes. You are the one who needs to learn to get it right. Do you like tickles? You like test tickles in your mouth, right? Try asking your dog to tickle you, then you will know what I mean by funny! No, I have no idea what you mean by funny because my dog just stared at me and didn't do anything. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Actually, MOhammed and MUhammed are both for both people. You can call both the prophet and the boxer MUhammed. You can call both the prophet and the boxer MOhammed. You pretended that you could call one MOhammed and the other MUhammed. Now I understand what your little lie was about. Side: Muhammad
0
points
Regardless of whether we were aware of which Ali Mohammed/Muhammed he was talking about, it still doesn't change the fact that you ought not to be talking about him. Of course it matters what the rest of the thread approves of, show some respect. You missed the point entirely. Side: Muhammad
Regardless of whether we were aware of which Ali Mohammed/Muhammed he was talking about, it still doesn't change the fact that you ought not to be talking about him. If you didn't want to talk about Muhammad Ali, you shouldn't have responded to a guy who mentioned Muhammad Ali. Of course it matters what the rest of the thread approves of, show some respect. We weren't discussing what the thread approves of, we were talking about whether anyone else didn't know that AveSatanas was talking about the boxer. You got as much respect as you deserved. You missed the point entirely. It took you long enough to figure that out. I had to spell it out for you and you still took forever to figure it out. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
I responded to that poster because I didn't know whether or not he actually meant the boxer. If I thought that he absolutely was talking about the boxer, I would have told him off far sooner. Still doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been talking about the boxer, does it? I have every right to speak. And no one had ever said that you need to be told to understand you should not be talking about the boxer, most people on this site don't need to be told. Side: Muhammad
You responded to the poster because you didn't know who the boxer was. I was never discussing whether he should have made a joke. You have every right to be considered wrong when you say something wrong. Most people know who Muhammad Ali is and wouldn't be fooled. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
I didn't respond to the poster because I didn't know who the boxer was. I responded to the poster because initially I was offended by his claim that Mohammed was stronger than Jesus. Who made a joke? What joke? You mean when ghostheadx said sarcastically that people seem to think they were referring to the boxer and not the prophet? He was being sarcastic, it wasn't a joke, but it is the same principle. You need to discuss whether that poster was being sarcastic to know he was being sarcastic, most people knew he was being sarcastic anyway without having to discuss it. Most people know who Muhammad Ali is and wouldn't be fooled and neither was I fooled. Side: Muhammad
See, you finally admit that you didn't know who Muhammad Ali was. The joke was switching the prophet Mohammed with Muhammad Ali. The joke comes from comparing 2 things that don't make any sense to compare. Most people know who Ali is and wouldn't be fooled, but you aren't either of those people. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
I said I wasn't fooled, I didn't say I was fooled. Re-read it. The word MUhammed being replaced with MOhammed was just a grammatical mistake or something like that. And ghostheadx wouldn't have made such a joke unless it had a context to it. You don't make random jokes that don't mean anything without being perceived as a retard. However, ghostheadx had a context to his Sarcastic comment, which you think is a joke. The context was that from his perspective people seemed to think that MOhammed was a boxer. Side: Jesus Christ
I said I wasn't fooled, I didn't say I was fooled. You were fooled, and you are a known liar. Re-read it. No need. I didn't say you admitted to being fooled. The word MUhammed being replaced with MOhammed was just a grammatical mistake or something like that. You completely ignored the name Ali every time it was presented. And ghostheadx wouldn't have made such a joke unless it had a context to it. AveSatanas made the joke. How thick are you? You don't make random jokes that don't mean anything without being perceived as a retard. No, the retard who couldn't perceive the obvious joke as a joke is the retard. However, ghostheadx had a context to his Sarcastic comment, which you think is a joke. Nope, wrong again. Sadly, I explained the exact joke and you still didn't get it. The context was that from his perspective people seemed to think that MOhammed was a boxer. No you moron. One person thought it would be funny to compare a boxer to Jesus since he had a similar name. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You said that I admit to not knowing who Mohammed Ali was. You said that others weren't fooled. Me admitting to supposedly not knowing who Mohammed Ali was is the same as admitting to being fooled. Learn the rules of logic. And you find it funny to compare Mohammed Ali to Muhammed Ali and say that some people seem to think Mohammed Ali is Muhammed Ali? OK, well, when I next time have a conversation about whether something hurts or not, I will make a joke saying, "some people seem to think Hertz refers to the force scale as in Joules, etc and not the sense of pain". OK. Me: "When you had sprained your knee, did that hurt?" Other 1: "Yes it did hurt, like terribly, I even broke my knee" Me: "How did you prevent it from hurting?" Other 1: "Oh, since I spliced it on a blade I had to cool it with water" Me: "Some people think Hertz is to do with Joules and not the pain sensation" Other 1: "What?" It would be out of context wouldn't it? The reason AveSatanas/ghostheadx made that sarcastic comment was because it was in context, because people actually believed the topic was about the boxer when it wasn't. And AveSatanas is ghostheadx, btw. How would you know otherwise? You don't know him. Don't resort to calling me a moron, you are blatantly running out of replies, I think. Side: Jesus Christ
You said that I admit to not knowing who Mohammed Ali was. True. That's because you said it. You said that others weren't fooled. Well, others weren't fooled. Me admitting to supposedly not knowing who Mohammed Ali was is the same as admitting to being fooled. I agree, but I never said that you actually said you were fooled. Learn the rules of logic. Why are you proving that you were fooled? And you find it funny to compare Mohammed Ali to Muhammed Ali and say that some people seem to think Mohammed Ali is Muhammed Ali? The prophet Mohammad was not named Ali. OK, well, when I next time have a conversation about whether something hurts or not, I will make a joke saying, "some people seem to think Hertz refers to the force scale as in Joules, etc and not the sense of pain". And, I hope you make fun of anyone who didn't understand that hertz is another word. Other 1: "What?" So, you admit it makes sense to question the person when they say something wrong to prove you weren't fooled. It would be out of context wouldn't it? Yes. Now, what if the start of the conversation started with the comment about hertz. In that case you would be a complete fucking idiot to not notice that and think about a different context that never existed. The reason AveSatanas/ghostheadx made that sarcastic comment was because it was in context, because people actually believed the topic was about the boxer when it wasn't. AveSatanas did not make a sarcastic comment. AveSatanas knows the debate is not about the boxer. And AveSatanas is ghostheadx, btw. I don't think so. How did you come to that conclusion? How would you know otherwise? You don't know him. I have seen their interactions on the website. Don't resort to calling me a moron, you are blatantly running out of replies, I think. If you act like a moron I will call you a moron. Side: Muhammad
1
point
If you SAID that I admitted to not knowing who Muhammed Ali was, then you were saying that I admitted to being fooled. The two are interchangeable. I can't say I like strawberries without admitting that strawberries exist. You make everything complicated. If you said that others weren't fooled you were implying that I somehow was. Does it not all make sense now? The Prophet Mohammed WAS named Ali. Why should I make fun of someone who didn't understand that Hertz was another word? Why do you expect others to be so cruel? And btw, excluding me, who you think had somehow believed that MUhammed wasn't MOhammed. who actually believed that MOhammed was MUhammed? No one, of course, except the creator of this thread. So was this supposed joke funny, if it wasn't aimed at anything or anyone? A joke has to be aimed at least at something or somebody to be considered funny. A joke can't be aimed at nothing. Who took the name Mohammed or MUhammed out of context. Of course AveSatanas knew that the debate was not about the boxer, that is why he had made that sarcastic comment about the people who thought the topic was about the boxer. You still don't know AveSatanas whether or not you have seen him on this thread just a few times. I know what sort of person AveSatanas is. If you act like a trucked up little spoon, I will called you a trucked up little spoon. Side: Jesus Christ
If you SAID that I admitted to not knowing who Muhammed Ali was, then you were saying that I admitted to being fooled. Fair enough. You admit that you were fooled. The two are interchangeable. You don't understand a word I say. You make everything complicated. It is actually very simple. That's how dumb you are. If you said that others weren't fooled you were implying that I somehow was. Actually, according to you and your logic you think you were fooled. I don't even have to do anything. The Prophet Mohammed WAS named Ali. Source? Why should I make fun of someone who didn't understand that Hertz was another word? Why do you expect others to be so cruel? Because you tricked him. And btw, excluding me, who you think had somehow believed that MUhammed wasn't MOhammed. who actually believed that MOhammed was MUhammed? It was the addition of Ali you complete fucking retard. No one refers to the prophet as Ali. No one, of course, except the creator of this thread. So was this supposed joke funny, if it wasn't aimed at anything or anyone? A joke has to be aimed at least at something or somebody to be considered funny. A joke can't be aimed at nothing. It was aimed at the createdebate audience you moron. Who took the name Mohammed or MUhammed out of context. AveSatanas. Of course AveSatanas knew that the debate was not about the boxer, that is why he had made that sarcastic comment about the people who thought the topic was about the boxer. He didn't make any sarcastic remarks. You still don't know AveSatanas whether or not you have seen him on this thread just a few times. I don't understand your point. You don't know anything. I know what sort of person AveSatanas is. I highly doubt that. You don'y even know what sort of person Muhammad Ali is. If you act like a trucked up little spoon, I will called you a trucked up little spoon. In America we don't use that as an insult, so you haven't really said anything close to offensive. What country would find that insulting and what does that mean? Side: Muhammad
1
point
Stop repeating yourself. In your own words, with your own logic it was you that was implying I was being fooled. Actually stop repeating yourself and say something new. The Prophet Mohammed was obviously named Ali, just look it up on google. Bother to link it? It's not my place to. I've seen TrumpsHair link articles, but I've never seen you do. I think it's time to pull your hypocrisy off it's ass. And how in the example provided did I somehow trick the person who had a knee wound? Make some bloody sense before trying to pick on other posters integrity. You seem to be confusing the concept of the audience of a joke and the concept of who or what a joke is targeted at. The Audience was the audience of Createdebate. But in order for a joke to be a joke you have to make fun of something or somebody. Who was AveSatanas making fun of? Well, he may have made a cutting remark about someone, but I don't consider him to be making a joke about someone, or making fun of anyone. And he certainly was not making a joke about people mistaking the name MUhammed for MOhammed, because nobody had demonstrated that mistake, therefore there was nobody to make fun of. He was making a cutting remark about posters who the thread was about the boxer, something which you also thought was the case. There was no light-hearted joke intended about mistaking the word MOhammed with MUhammed because nobody had actually made such a mistake, so there was nobody to aim that joke at. You need serious help. Side: Jesus Christ
You made the same exact arguments. Of course I repeated myself. The Prophet Mohammed was obviously named Ali, just look it up on google. Bother to link it? It's not my place to. I've seen TrumpsHair link articles, but I've never seen you do. I did look it up and he was not named Ali. I think it's time to pull your hypocrisy off it's ass. That doesn't make sense. And how in the example provided did I somehow trick the person who had a knee wound? You didn't. He caught you. Even in your own conversation you couldn't come up with a great example. Make some bloody sense before trying to pick on other posters integrity. Sure thing. Done. You seem to be confusing the concept of the audience of a joke and the concept of who or what a joke is targeted at. In this case they were the same. But in order for a joke to be a joke you have to make fun of something or somebody. That isn't true. Who was AveSatanas making fun of? He was making fun of the idea that you can only compare Jesus to the prophet Muhammad. I already explained it to you. Well, he may have made a cutting remark about someone, but I don't consider him to be making a joke about someone, or making fun of anyone. A joke is still a joke even when you don't understand it. And he certainly was not making a joke about people mistaking the name MUhammed for MOhammed, because nobody had demonstrated that mistake, therefore there was nobody to make fun of. One fucking idiot made that mistake. He was making a cutting remark about posters who the thread was about the boxer, something which you also thought was the case. The debate was not about the boxer. What AveSatanas said was about the boxer. There was no light-hearted joke intended about mistaking the word MOhammed with MUhammed because nobody had actually made such a mistake, so there was nobody to aim that joke at. Yes, because the point wasn't to do that. You need serious help. Can't explain the spoon remark? Or is that what the spoon remark means? Side: Muhammad
1
point
I tried to re-phrase my previous point every time you repeated yourself and you still failed to grasp it. You looked it up? Do you have a link for that? Who caught me in the example provided? How can I be caught if I didn't even attempt to trick anyone in the example provided? You aren't making any sense. Trick who? In the context provided, target means who the joke is making fun of. While audience means which people the joke is intended to impress. I can imagine your next word twisting, now! "But you don't always impress people which jokes". Oh, stop being pedantic. The Joke was intended to impress. Before you post, I never said you had actually said that line, but I can imagine you using it, so don't get cheeky. Side: Jesus Christ
I tried to re-phrase my previous point every time you repeated yourself and you still failed to grasp it. You are wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you rephrase a wrong statement. You looked it up? Do you have a link for that? Sure. See below. Search for Ali and all you will find is that the guy who came after Muhammad was named Ali. Who caught me in the example provided? Other 1 caught you by saying "Wait, what?" How can I be caught if I didn't even attempt to trick anyone in the example provided? You did, by using the word hertz instead of hurts. You aren't making any sense. You lack the capacity to understand. In the context provided, target means who the joke is making fun of. You did not actually provide enough context. But, it was making fun of the idea that you can only compare the prophet Muhammad to Jesus because they are religious figures. Who thinks that? The createdebate community. While audience means which people the joke is intended to impress. Makes sense. I can imagine your next word twisting, now! You can't even imagine someone talking about a boxer. The Joke was intended to impress. Which joke are you talking about? Side: Muhammad
1
point
I have rephrased because I thought you had the sense to know if I rephrased it, my statement wasn't wrong. Why do I have to search for Ali? I have been on many debate sites in the past and have all too much tried to cite sources to make posters understand, but it never gets anywhere. Why should I ever bother? There is a point where one has to stop trying to prove a point to someone who is incapable of receiving that point. I.e. you. It was me who had invented the character in that script I had made for you, so how are you supposed to know that he was implying he had caught someone because he had said "what?". And I don't believe he had said "wait, what?", he had simply said, "wait, what?" I was the one who had written that post with that script in it, so who do you think you are to tell me that the response of comparing hertz to hurts was meant as a trick? You didn't write it, so don't pretend to know what I was trying to say by that script. "You did not actually provide enough context. But, it was making fun of the idea that you can only compare the prophet Muhammad to Jesus because they are religious figures. Who thinks that? The createdebate community." Did the createdebate community actually suggest that you can only compare Mohammed to Muhammed? Where did it ever say that? Most of the site knew they were referring to the prophet and not the boxer, only you didn't know. How can you make fun of something if it isn't even the case? See where I am going with this? I didn't say, "The Joke was intended to Impress", that is you making up a new quote, as well. I had said, "In the context provided, target means who the joke is making fun of". You provided a false joke, and in the context of that false joke, then I told you what the term "target" meant. Yet again, you should do the math, I shouldn't be doing your thinking for you, should I? Side: Jesus Christ
I have rephrased because I thought you had the sense to know if I rephrased it, my statement wasn't wrong. You are wrong. No amount of rephrasing will fix that. Why do I have to search for Ali? Man, everything has to be spelled out for you. You want to know how I know that no one called the prophet Muhammad Muhammad Ali. In order to do that you would have to search for the name Ali in the link I gave you. I have been on many debate sites in the past and have all too much tried to cite sources to make posters understand, but it never gets anywhere. When you give them the source do they act as retarded as you? Why should I ever bother? I don't give a fuck if you post a source. I posted mine. You weren't going to be able to find a source to support you any way. There is a point where one has to stop trying to prove a point to someone who is incapable of receiving that point. I.e. you. Yeah, but I am the one who needs to stop trying to prove my point because you are clearly incapable of receiving the point. It was me who had invented the character in that script I had made for you, so how are you supposed to know that he was implying he had caught someone because he had said "what?". So, your characters are just incredibly stupid and don't understand what is going on around them. You are going to need smarter characters in order to make a point. And I don't believe he had said "wait, what?", he had simply said, "wait, what?" Is there really a difference? I don't have time to go back to your incredibly stupid example to find the correct wording. You didn't write it, so don't pretend to know what I was trying to say by that script. You are too dumb to even know what you were trying to write. Are you claiming that I am wrong and the person in your example wasn't tricked and thought the use of hertz instead of hurts was funny? Did the createdebate community actually suggest that you can only compare Mohammed to Muhammed? You are too dumb for words. You can't be this dumb in real life, right? Look at what you quoted. I did not say comparing Mohammad to Muhammad. This is one of those cases where it is clear that you aren't listening. How can you make fun of something if it isn't even the case? This doesn't actually make sense. I can't play the pronoun game with you since your mind is all over the place. See where I am going with this? The question everyone else is asking. You provided a false joke No, you did. then I told you what the term "target" meant. And, I gave you the target. What's the problem? Yet again, you should do the math, I shouldn't be doing your thinking for you, should I? When are you going to start doing the thinking for yourself? Actually, you should stop thinking. Stop thinking that you are the only one who has something to say here. Stop thinking that you are the only one who is trying to get the other to understand something. Stop thinking that you have all the answers. Side: Muhammad
1
point
I'm getting quite sick of you. I have tried BREAKING everything up for you and you just tossed it all over the place. A joke has to have some basis of truth in it, but has to have an element that isn't, i.e. imagination. The thing is, when he said that some people think Mohammed is referring to the boxer and not the prophet, that was too truth to actually be ironic. Since there were actually people who thought Mohammed was the boxer, that "joke" of yours was to ironic and actually to really be considered funny. A joke is funny once you subconsciously know that what you are hearing isn't quite true, but if what the person is joking about actually happens to be true, it isn't funny anymore. For example, making a joke like, "be careful with peeling that layer back, I'm sure it might flick right in your face and I might have to call an ambulance instead of your sports car lender" and the accident actually happened, it wouldn't be funny, because it actually happened to pass and ended up being quite grim. See what I mean? Side: Jesus Christ
I'm getting quite sick of you. I tend to make people sick when they don't listen to me. I have tried BREAKING everything up for you and you just tossed it all over the place. And, I have easily explained how everything you said was wrong. A joke has to have some basis of truth in it, but has to have an element that isn't, i.e. imagination. So, we are in agreement that what AveSatanas said was a joke? The thing is, when he said that some people think Mohammed is referring to the boxer and not the prophet, that was too truth to actually be ironic. No it didn't. Since there were actually people who thought Mohammed was the boxer There wasn't anybody who thought Mohammad was the boxer. No one on here thought Mohammad was the boxer. The lone idiot here thought Muhammad Ali was the prophet. A joke is funny once you subconsciously know that what you are hearing isn't quite true I understand that you didn't get the joke and that's why you don't think it is funny. but if what the person is joking about actually happens to be true, it isn't funny anymore. It doesn't have to be funny to be a joke. Plus, are you admitting that Muhammad Ali could beat up Jesus in the ring? For example, making a joke like, "be careful with peeling that layer back, I'm sure it might flick right in your face and I might have to call an ambulance instead of your sports car lender" and the accident actually happened, it wouldn't be funny, because it actually happened to pass and ended up being quite grim. Would that make the original statement not a joke? See what I mean? I understand what you are saying, but what you are saying deviates from your initial argument. You are saying that AveSatanas joke is not funny. That's fine. But, you have to stop claiming it isn't a joke. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
A joke has to make fun of somebody or something. A joke has a theme, a joke has to be about something, in the same way that a book or a movie has to have a characters or objects within the scenes. You can't make a joke without it having anything in it. Let me make my point clear, for you, bucko. I have an example of a joke here. "What do you call a " "" Was that joke funny? No, because it had no subject. Once you fill in the blank the joke starts to become funny, possibly. But if since there is nothing in the blank, the joke isn't funny. A joke is an idea that sounds amusing, saying you can only compare something to this or that without any amusing connotation to it is stupid. How is that funny? Of course you have to make fun of something for a joke to work, idiot. And I see you have a problem with the term "trucked up spoon", does it make you feel queasy? Bucko, it's just a phrase. Side: Jesus Christ
A joke has to make fun of somebody or something. A joke has a theme, a joke has to be about something, in the same way that a book or a movie has to have a characters or objects within the scenes. You can't make a joke without it having anything in it. You have no sense of humor, and you have no idea what is a joke. Let me make my point clear, for you, bucko. I have an example of a joke here. "What do you call a " "" Was that joke funny? No, because it had no subject. Without a subject it not only wasn't funny, it wasn't a joke. It was the start of a question. Once you fill in the blank the joke starts to become funny, possibly. But if since there is nothing in the blank, the joke isn't funny. Right, but even if the blank is filled in that doesn't mean it is funny. Just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean it wasn't a joke. A joke is an idea that sounds amusing, saying you can only compare something to this or that without any amusing connotation to it is stupid. How is that funny? You stupid fucking idiot. You are making the argument that we can only compare the prophet Mohammad to Jesus because they are similar and there can't be anything amusing to it. Now you are saying that it is stupid to think you can't find something amusing. Of course you have to make fun of something for a joke to work, idiot. I have a different view of making fun of things. What does the following joke make fun of? "What time is it when an elephant sits on your fence? Time to get a new fence." And I see you have a problem with the term "trucked up spoon", does it make you feel queasy? You are the dumbest fucking person on the face of the Earth, aren't you? I already told you that your stupid fucking phrase doesn't mean anything to me. Of course it doesn't make me queasy dumb fuck. Bucko, it's just a phrase. What does the phrase mean, stupid fucko? Side: Muhammad
1
point
Of course, without a subject, your idea of what was a joke was not only not funny, it was also not a joke. So therefore we should henceforth put the word "joke" in brackets to emphasize that what you think was a "joke" was not even a "joke". Your "joke" had no real subject, so therefore it wasn't a "joke". Claiming that the createdebate audience only thought you could compare Mohammed to Jesus when the createdebate site never said any such thing is like saying "The blue bear made me laugh" out of the blue, without any context. What blue bear made me laugh? In the joke you had made, you were making fun of the blue bear. You trucked up spoon, boasts Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
So therefore we should henceforth put the word "joke" in brackets to emphasize that what you think was a "joke" was not even a "joke". You fucking retard. It is what you thought was a joke. Not me. You have no idea what a joke is. Your "joke" had no real subject, so therefore it wasn't a "joke". I didn't make a joke you dumb shit. Claiming that the createdebate audience only thought you could compare Mohammed to Jesus when the createdebate site never said any such thing You fucking said that you stupid fucking piece of shit. You complained multiple times that we shouldn't be talking about the boxer. You are dumber than a box of rocks. In the joke you had made, you were making fun of the blue bear. How is it making fun of the elephant? You trucked up spoon, boasts You are actually dumb enough that you are starting to hurt my head. Like dealing with the dumbest possible thing that could be said and then hear even stupider kind of pain. Your stupidity has no bounds. It's amazing. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
You still have no evidence. A joke has to have imagination. A joke has to be funny to at least somebody. A joke has to have real context about something stated to actually exist, except is twisted round. You can't twist round something that doesn't exist in any shape or form. For example you can't make a joke about a "blue garden fence looking so blue that you thought it was about to throw up over the flowers in the flowerbed", if no flowerbed actually existed. It would be totally random. There may have been imagination in that example, but it wouldn't even have been a sentence. "Some people think Muhammed refers to the boxer and not the prophet". Some people think Muhammed refers to WHICH boxer? What boxer? It isn't even a sentence unless a boxer is actually called into question. If something is called into question, it means it has to be something that was previously stated. No boxer was previously stated to exist ACCORDING TO YOU. If anything, the poster may have originally meant that the author had misspelled Muhammed and that he meant the prophet, but the forum idiots somehow thought that he had meant the boxer and were unable to tell that the name was misspelled. Try to figure things out for yourself. Side: Jesus Christ
You still have no evidence. False. A joke has to have imagination. AveSatanas imagined Muhammad Ali boxing Jesus. So check. A joke has to be funny to at least somebody. AveSatanas thought the joke was funny. So check. A joke has to have real context about something stated to actually exist, except is twisted round. AveSatanas twisted around the idea of comparing Jesus to the prophet Muhammad to comparing him to the boxer Muhammad Ali. So check. So, we are in agreement that what AveSatanas said was a joke. "Some people think Muhammed refers to the boxer and not the prophet". WHAT? You pulled the wrong sentence. What ghostheadx said was not a joke. Why are you analyzing what ghostheadx said? We already know that wasn't a joke. Some people think Muhammed refers to WHICH boxer? What boxer? There is only one boxer named Muhammad that was famous, and since ghostheadx was referring to what AveSatanas said, we know the full name from AveSatanas' post: Muhammad Ali. He is the boxer we are talking about. It isn't even a sentence unless a boxer is actually called into question. AveSatanas called into question using the boxer Muhammad Ali. If something is called into question, it means it has to be something that was previously stated. No boxer was previously stated to exist ACCORDING TO YOU. You are out of your mind. I have told you over and over and over again that Muhammad Ali was mentioned in the very first post that you responded to. The very first post that you responded to was talking about the boxer Muhammad Ali and not the prophet Muhammad. So, NOT ACCORDING TO ME. If anything, the poster may have originally meant that the author had misspelled Muhammed and that he meant the prophet No. No one misspelled Muhammad, the original guy added Ali. Adding Ali changed who we were talking about. but the forum idiots You are the only forum idiot. somehow thought that he had meant the boxer and were unable to tell that the name was misspelled. You need to stop playing the pronoun game. I don't know who you mean by "he" in this context. The guy who created the debate (Sherlock17) was talking about the prophet Muhammad. AveSatanas knew that Sherlock17 was talking about the prophet Muhammad. AveSatanas decided to make a joke anyway and changed the conversation to the boxer Muhammad Ali. Try to figure things out for yourself. You really have no idea how dumb you sound when you say things and you are corrected over and over and you think the person who is correcting you and putting you on the right track needs to figure something out. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Cartman, I didn't realise you were talking about what AveSatanas had said. You should since it was mentioned over and over. I thought you were talking about ghostheadx. I mentioned AveSatanas many many times. It was just a mistake, don't take it personally. I know you made a mistake. You wouldn't admit it. No wonder this confusion arose. That doesn't begin to explain the confusion. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
Both the prophet and the boxer can be called MOhammed. But, I only ever referred to one of them as Mohammad. Both the prophet and the boxer can be called MUhammed. But, only one of them can be called Muhammad Ali. No, the boxer isn't just called MUhammed. Correct, he is called Muhammad Ali. Nor is the prophet just called MOhammed. Wrong. He can be referred to as just Mohammad, or just Muhammad. You weren't confused when I called him Mohammad. You have blatantly lied. No I have not. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You said that a poster was joking saying it would be funny if the word MUhammed was used instead of MOhammed. Well, MUhammed was valid anyway. So his sarcastic comment didn't count as holding any ground. It was him creating a ruse. How is it funny and wrong (you like to claim that jokes have to be so wrong as to be against most peoples beliefs, I'm being kind in light of your original statement btw), it isn't funny nor is it wrong to claim that you can't use the word Muhammed, as that would be the correct word to use. However, the poster made a joke about replacing the word MOhammed with MUhammed, according to you. And I then discussed that, OK, lets pretend MUhammed can't really be called MUhammed as well and lets describe how your joke isn't funny, since it lacks both imagination and context. How is it funny and outrageous to believe that the prophet MUhammed is MOhammed the prophet? It isn't? Do I have to repeat myself? OK, then I will. Lets try again, if Mohammed could really only be called MUhammed the prophet and not MUhammed the prophet, it still would not be funny, within that underlying context, since he wouldn't have been taking the mick out of anybody, since nobody had ever claimed that you could or couldn't use the word MUhammed or MOhammed. Look, I just repeated myself. Do you get it? You can't joke or laud out about things that don't exist in the first place. You can't take the mick out of something that doesn't exist. Nobody Had Ever Claimed That You Aren't Or Are Allowed To Use The Word Mohammed or Muhammed!!! Seriously!!! Side: Jesus Christ
You said that a poster was joking saying it would be funny if the word MUhammed was used instead of MOhammed. I did not. Quote me saying that. However, the poster made a joke about replacing the word MOhammed with MUhammed, according to you. You stupid forgetful fucko. I did not say that. Only you have said that. I said he added the name Ali. He replaced Muhammad with Muhammad Ali. Do I have to repeat myself? You stupid forgetful fucko. You said that repeating yourself was bad. Lets try again I have corrected you multiple times. if Mohammed could really only be called MUhammed the prophet and not MUhammed the prophet, it still would not be funny, within that underlying context, since he wouldn't have been taking the mick out of anybody, since nobody had ever claimed that you could or couldn't use the word MUhammed or MOhammed. Why do you never mention the name Ali? I have said at least 20 times that the joke was using the name Ali. Look, I just repeated myself. And again, I will tell you that nobody talked about replacing the u with an o. Do you get it? You are the one who doesn't get it you stupid fucko. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Remember, Cartman, you are forgetting things. Not only is the Ali replaced with no first name, as in Ali MUhammed, the letter U is replaced with an O as well. OK, just try to remember that not only is the first name somehow replaced with no first name, you replace the O with a U. Just reminding you of your own grammar lectures, mister! Ali O! So remember the main rule of thumb, ALIO! Your favourite mnemonic! Side: Jesus Christ
Remember, Cartman, you are forgetting things. Only you have admitted that you have forgotten something. Not only is the Ali replaced with no first name, as in Ali MUhammed, the letter U is replaced with an O as well. No. Ali was his last name. No one has ever called him Ali Muhammad but you. Muhammad Ali is a boxer. No one put an o for the boxer. OK, just try to remember that not only is the first name somehow replaced with no first name, you replace the O with a U. Last name. The name that comes last is the last name. I did replace the o and u, but it made no difference to what I was saying. Every time I said Ali I was talking about the boxer. Every time I said Muhammad by itself or Mohammad I was talking about the prophet. The was no confusion. You created the confusion in your own head. You have already admitted that you had no problem recognizing Mohammad as the prophet Muhammad. Just reminding you of your own grammar lectures, mister! No, you are only reminding me of your thoughts. Nothing you say represents any of the lessons I have given you. Ali O! So remember the main rule of thumb, ALIO! Your favourite mnemonic! Do you like being dumb? Side: Muhammad
1
point
Let's set you straight. Ali Mohammed can be the prophet. Ali Muhammed can be the prophet. While only Ali Muhammed is the boxer. Although it's possible for Ali Muhammed to be both the prophet and the boxer. What's up, never knew that two people could exist that have the same first name and surname? There are loads of people like that. There are probably hundreds or thousands (depending on the country that you live in) of people living in your country that have the same first and last name as you. It is the case with me. Don't believe me? Side: Jesus Christ
Ali Mohammad can't be the prophet since the prophet wasn't named Ali. Ali Muhammad can't be the prophet since the prophet wasn't named Ali. There are loads of people with the same first and last name. The boxer and the prophet on the other hand only share 1 name. The prophet was not named Ali. I already showed you that. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Ok. So, since you are a habitual liar, I am right by default. Saying someone is wrong based on the claim that someone is an habitual liar proves that you are actually the one who is wrong by default, if you have to resort to accusations of lying. I am right by default. No one is right by default, nor is anyone wrong by default. That is just an excuse. Side: Jesus Christ
Saying someone is wrong based on the claim that someone is an habitual liar proves that you are actually the one who is wrong by default, if you have to resort to accusations of lying. It is not an accusation, it is a proven fact that you lie. I am not relying on you being a liar to prove my point, I already proved my point and you think your word is more valuable than wikipedia. I have news for you, wikipedia is a much more reliable source than blizzardbird. No one is right by default, nor is anyone wrong by default. We should consider everything you say as wrong by default since you have never backed up any of your crazy notions. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
I already proved my point and you think your word is more valuable than wikipedia. I have news for you, wikipedia is a much more reliable source than blizzardbird. Wikipedia is actually on my favour, not yours. We should consider everything you say as wrong by default since you have never backed up any of your crazy notions. Projection. Side: Jesus Christ
Wikipedia is actually on my favour, not yours. You actually disagreed with wikipedia and listed yourself as a source for the prophet Muhammad's real name. Wikipedia does not favor you since Wikipedia records facts. Projection. I have provided multiple sources and explanations for my notions. No projection here buddy. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Wikipedia listed Ali's Islamic title, not his actual name. False. Wikipedia listed the prophet Muhammad's "Islamic title". He is not name Ali. There is a difference. Wikipedia doesn't list the name that you need Wikipedia to list in order for your claim that Wikipedia supports you to be valid. Also, Wikipedia doesn't call it an Islamist title. Side: Muhammad
1
point
When did Wikipedia ever say anything about Mohammed having Ali as his Islamic title? Finally, you are coming around. NEVER. That's my point. It said abu allah as his Islamic title. It doesn't say anything about it being an Islamic title. It never said anything about the name "ali". That's my point. What are you on about? Wikipedia does not support the idea that his name was Ali. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Pretty much all of the facts that Wikipedia includes tend to be correct. But Wikipedia doesn't include Mohammad's real name. That's all. Just like Wikipedia doesn't include the full history of all the elements in the periodic table back to the French revolution. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
"And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]." Kinda confused.. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
According reality, that is his full birth name It was his Islamic title at birth. Of course this must be one of those situations where you have some secret information that nobody else in the world knows, right? It's only secret if you let it be. Be informed about the world! Learn a lot and go on an adventure! Side: Jesus Christ
He had a title at birth from a religion that he founded after he was born? Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooah! He is better than Jesus. It's only secret if you let it be. Be informed about the world! Learn a lot and go on an adventure! An acid trip is not a real trip. Side: Muhammad
1
point
It was Mohammad's parents that had invented Islam and given him his Islamic title. It was his parents, not Mohammed himself who had invented Islam. Mohammed was merely the first member of the religion and the first prophet. His Islamic title originated in Hinduism, where he and his parents originated. Side: Jesus Christ
It was Mohammad's parents that had invented Islam and given him his Islamic title. Not true at all. It was his parents, not Mohammed himself who had invented Islam. This isn't backed up by reality. Mohammed was merely the first member of the religion and the first prophet. He isn't even the first prophet according to Islam. He is the last prophet. His Islamic title originated in Hinduism, where he and his parents originated. Sorry, I won't bother to fact check that for you, I will just assume it is wrong. Side: Muhammad
1
point
This isn't backed up by reality History is deep. He isn't even the first prophet according to Islam. He is the last prophet Mohammed was the last prophet in reality. Of course the muslims seem to think he was the last prophet. There was no prophet before Mohammed, although Mohammed himself deludely assumed that he was the last prophet, when he was in fact the first. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
That is the most believable thing you have ever said. I can be convinced that you are actually dumb enough to believe that I am the one spewing bullshit. I do believe you are that crazy. You need someone else to talk to if you are interested in word plays. I'm more interested in debating. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Good. Earlier you said that Wikipedia was on your side. I am glad you can finally admit the truth. Why do you feel the need to claim it was? This seems to be a matter of control, in my opinion. Your desire to somehow make me admit to things actually proves your inherent nature to control others. When did I ever say that Wikipedia backed up my claim. You like to make it out like I had said things I hadn't said. You can't get false words out of me, it's not possible, try it with someone else. Side: Jesus Christ
Can you please stop using pronouns? I don't know what you mean when you speak. Why do you feel the need to claim it was? This seems to be a matter of control, in my opinion. I don't know what "it" means here. If you are referring to the claim that Wikipedia was on your side, I didn't do that, it was you. If "it" refers to me talking about the truth, it seems quite ridiculous to claim I am trying to control you. The point of a debate is to discuss the truth. If you don't believe truth, how can we debate? Your desire to somehow make me admit to things actually proves your inherent nature to control others. How are you not trying to control what I believe by making up fake information and passing it off as true? I can't debate with you until you admit to what your position is. There is nothing controlling about getting you to admit what you believe so I can discuss it. When did I ever say that Wikipedia backed up my claim. You like to make it out like I had said things I hadn't said. "Wikipedia is actually on my favour, not yours." You claimed that Wikipedia was on your favour. I like to make it out like you said things you did say. You can't get false words out of me, it's not possible, try it with someone else. It is very easy to get false words out of you. All I have to do is ask you what the prophet Muhammad's name was. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Can you please stop using pronouns? I don't know what you mean when you speak. Would you rather I only use adjectives? Nothing wrong with pronouns. Saw nothing here to argue with. I don't know what "it" means here. If you are referring to the claim that Wikipedia was on your side, I didn't do that, it was you. If "it" refers to me talking about the truth, it seems quite ridiculous to claim I am trying to control you. The point of a debate is to discuss the truth. If you don't believe truth, how can we debate? I think the word "it" was a response to some noun that you had stated in your post prior to mine. "It" often means you are referring to something that is a pronoun. You're prior noun was Wikipedia. Cleared it up a little bit? How are you not trying to control what I believe by making up fake information and passing it off as true? I can't debate with you until you admit to what your position is. There is nothing controlling about getting you to admit what you believe so I can discuss it. A persons position is all about perspective. You seem to lack the maturity needed to debate if you can't see this. Everything is about perspective. From my perspective what I say is true. You desire to take control over what I should or shouldn't believe, instead of having a rational discussion. You claimed that Wikipedia was on your favour. I like to make it out like you said things you did say. I've heard that one too often. It is very easy to get false words out of you. All I have to do is ask you what the prophet Muhammad's name was. This statement seems to prove that you enjoy something. Get the kick out of this garbage, much? Side: Jesus Christ
Would you rather I only use adjectives? Use the full noun. "It" can refer to several things. Be specific. Nothing wrong with pronouns. When you use them it doesn't clear anything up. I think the word "it" was a response to some noun that you had stated in your post prior to mine. See, even you don't fucking know. "It" often means you are referring to something that is a pronoun. "It" is the pronoun. It takes the place of a more specific noun. You're prior noun was Wikipedia. Cleared it up a little bit? No, not at all. Since, if "it" refers to Wikipedia, I didn't do that, it was you. Read the rest of what I wrote. From my perspective what I say is true. I am well aware that you don't give a single fuck about what is actually true. You seem to lack the maturity to know that your perspective is worthless. You desire to take control over what I should or shouldn't believe, instead of having a rational discussion. How can I have a rational discussion with someone who thinks their perspective is more important than anyone else? You want everyone else to just accept your perspective and move on. That is extremely controlling. I've heard that one too often. Stop claiming that Wikipedia is on your favour and people will stop saying that to you. If everyone thinks you are an asshole, maybe they are right. This statement seems to prove that you enjoy something. Get the kick out of this garbage, much? Obviously I get a kick out of garbage or I wouldn't talk to you at all. Side: Muhammad
2
points
Use the full noun. "It" can refer to several things. Be specific. It refers to the last noun mentioned. Based on your argument you are implying that the word "it" mustn't be used at all. The last noun mentioned was "Wikipedia". Don't you remember? "It" is the pronoun. It takes the place of a more specific noun. There's a reason we don't need to state the more specific noun. It's probably because we have both already mentioned the more specific noun, in this case, "Wikipedia". Don't you remember ever talking about Wikipedia all of the sudden? I am well aware that you don't give a single fuck about what is actually true. You seem to lack the maturity to know that your perspective is worthless. You're speaking about maturity, hilarious. Just don't try to give anyone any psycho-analysis. How can I have a rational discussion with someone who thinks their perspective is more important than anyone else? You want everyone else to just accept your perspective and move on. That is extremely controlling. "You want everyone else to just accept your perspective and move on." That's quite manipulative and said for the sake of inducing guilt. What gives you the right to make someone feel that their opinions don't matter and that they don't have a right to state them? Stop claiming that Wikipedia is on your favour and people will stop saying that to you. If everyone thinks you are an asshole, maybe they are right. Everyone? Lol, too bad. Say that again, bud. Obviously I get a kick out of garbage or I wouldn't talk to you at all. You're clearly a very different person to me. Side: Jesus Christ
It refers to the last noun mentioned. Based on your argument you are implying that the word "it" mustn't be used at all. The last noun mentioned was "Wikipedia". Don't you remember? Wikipedia was not the last noun mentioned. There's a reason we don't need to state the more specific noun. It's probably because we have both already mentioned the more specific noun, in this case, "Wikipedia". Don't you remember ever talking about Wikipedia all of the sudden? I didn't think that "it" could refer to Wikipedia since your sentence makes no sense if "it" refers to Wikipedia. Maybe if you read the rest of what I wrote you would understand. You're speaking about maturity, hilarious. Just don't try to give anyone any psycho-analysis. I like how you only discuss one word in my sentence and ignore the rest. That's because you lack maturity. That's quite manipulative and said for the sake of inducing guilt. No, asshole. It was said because it is fucking true. You are mad at me for not accepting your word as truth. What gives you the right to make someone feel that their opinions don't matter and that they don't have a right to state them? When the person states that their opinions are facts I have the right to correct them. What gives you the right to make someone feel that your opinions are more important than theirs? You are doing it too. Everyone? Lol, too bad. Say that again, bud. Everyone thinks you are an asshole because you are an asshole. You're clearly a very different person to me. You do realize that you just said that I am not garbage, right? Side: Muhammad
1
point
Wikipedia was not the last noun mentioned. What was the last noun mentioned? I like how you only discuss one word in my sentence and ignore the rest. That's because you lack maturity. I don't recall ever ignoring the rest of your entire post and only focusing on one statement. Never gave almost an entire post a pass. But this time I think I will give everything else a past, as it is just subjective and pointless to discuss. We've been through this countless of times. Side: Jesus Christ
What was the last noun mentioned? The truth. I don't recall ever ignoring the rest of your entire post and only focusing on one statement. Never gave almost an entire post a pass. More bad memory. Go back to my last argument and you will see that you failed to address part of what I wrote. We've been through this countless of times. And I have destroyed you every time. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Wikipedia was the subject noun. Your sentence made no sense if "it" referred to Wikipedia you stupid forgetful fucko. rolf My name isn't rolf. You look like you are being evasive when I corrected you on what the last noun was and you still won't acknowledge that you were wrong about the last noun. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I quoted you fucking saying that it did back you up before you stated repeatedly that it doesn't back you up. It was one before the other? OK, I guess I learnt something new. Remember, Cartman's new rubbish line. "It was one before the other"! Wait, that was more original than Cartman's previous statement. "I quoted you saying... that it sdksfjmikej backed upwakjdmoiefj....." AHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Come and ban me mods, I can get away with being mean! HAHAHAHAHA! I have every right to be. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
I really have to ask, why are you on this website? What reason do you believe I have to be on this website for in your opinion? I can't answer that. I am quite curious to know why you think I am on this website though. Lol. What was that I hear about an ugly God complex? Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I have tried. I even gave you a compliment. That's a rarity to hear. I imagine Muhammad the prophet would cheat and win. He seems like a dirty fighter. But wasn't Jesus fairly wise to other peoples tricks? He managed to stay on to of the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Scribes when they tried to play games with him. Muhammed might cheat, but I doubt Jesus wouldn't try to turn things round on Mohammad's head, either. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
Even if I was a liar You are a liar. why should I not be proud of it? Your lies are actually really bad. Remember, we all must be proud of who we are! If you were proud of being a liar why would you say "Even if I was a liar"? You aren't actually proud. You just like being a liar. Side: Muhammad
1
point
You are a liar. It really doesn't take much to get you to rely on Ad Hominems. Your lies are actually really bad. All of my posts are far better than you're dismissive word twisting. If you were proud of being a liar why would you say "Even if I was a liar"? You aren't actually proud. You just like being a liar. I think you're actually quite thick. Of course I'm not a liar, we are only speaking metaphorically. "Even if I was" means "Even if it happened to be the case". Even if what you were saying was true. Doesn't mean one shouldn't be proud of it. Someone is a liar doesn't mean they shouldn't be proud of being a liar. "Even" means "although". "Although one happens to be a liar, doesn't mean one shouldn't be proud of it." "Although" in other words means "despite being". So let's re-phrase it for you. "desite being a liar, doesn't mean I shouldn't be proud of it." Make any sense now? "Despite being" can also be replaced with "Just doesn't change the fact". Let's re-phrase it yet again. "Being a liar doesn't change the fact that I shouldn't be proud of it" Make any sense now? And no, I'm not a liar. I'm just speaking figuratively. Live and let live. Stop judging people. Side: Jesus Christ
It really doesn't take much to get you to rely on Ad Hominems. It isn't an Ad Hominem, it is a fact. You are in fact a liar. All of my posts are far better than you're dismissive word twisting. Bullshit. You twisted who was responsible for creating Islam. I think you're actually quite thick. That's because you are too fucking stupid to learn from smart people. "Even if I was" means "Even if it happened to be the case". It is most definitely the case. Even if what you were saying was true. Doesn't mean one shouldn't be proud of it. Then, why aren't you proud of being a liar? Why deny something you want to be proud of? Someone is a liar doesn't mean they shouldn't be proud of being a liar. How are you being proud about being a liar when you deny it? So let's re-phrase it for you. Again, the only one who is confused here is you. "desite being a liar, doesn't mean I shouldn't be proud of it." Make any sense now? Of course it makes fucking sense. My response shows a great understanding of what you wrote. And no, I'm not a liar. I'm just speaking figuratively. You are a liar, and denying it shows you aren't proud of it. Not showing pride in being a liar, which you most definitely are, shows that you are lying about thinking it is ok to have pride in being a liar. Do YOU get it? Stop judging people. I am only doing it the way you do, so it's ok. Hypocrite. Side: Muhammad
1
point
It isn't an Ad Hominem, it is a fact. You are in fact a liar. Calling somebody a liar is a character assault. Yes, it is an Ad Hominem since it addressed the person and not the facts. Bullshit. You twisted who was responsible for creating Islam Who could I have done that? That's because you are too fucking stupid to learn from smart people Do you consider yourself smart? By chance, you probably do. You have said nothing original, nothing insightful. Nothing amusing. It is most definitely the case Certainly nothing original hear. I want to hear some good one liners, now! Let's set you a target. Then, why aren't you proud of being a liar? Why deny something you want to be proud of? Nothing wrong with being pride of being what you were made to be, even if that means being proud of being a liar. Thing is, I wasn't made to be, nor am I a liar. How are you being proud about being a liar when you deny it? I can only be proud of being a liar if I was one. Again, the only one who is confused here is you. You explained yourself poorly. You focused on the wrong words. Of course it makes fucking sense. My response shows a great understanding of what you wrote. You've got a lot to learn. You ain't no psychologist. You are a liar, and denying it shows you aren't proud of it. Not showing pride in being a liar, which you most definitely are, shows that you are lying about thinking it is ok to have pride in being a liar. Do YOU get it? You're view can only be true if I happen to actually be a liar. I am only doing it the way you do, so it's ok. Hypocrite. Who have I judged and pointed the finger at? Side: Jesus Christ
Calling somebody a liar is a character assault. Yes, it is an Ad Hominem since it addressed the person and not the facts. The facts are in, you are a liar. Since the discussion ventured into whether you were a liar, the fact that you are a liar got presented. Who could I have done that? In your random bullshit posts of bullshit. Do you consider yourself smart? Yes. You have said nothing original, nothing insightful. A response expected from an imbecile. Nothing amusing. What is amusing about making up unbelievable lies? Certainly nothing original hear. I want to hear some good one liners, now! Let's set you a target. Changing the subject? Nothing wrong with being pride of being what you were made to be, even if that means being proud of being a liar. Thing is, I wasn't made to be, nor am I a liar. If it is not wrong to do something, why don't you do that thing? I can only be proud of being a liar if I was one. So, go ahead and be proud, you are 100% for sure a liar. You explained yourself poorly. Wrong. An explanation is not judged based on the idiot who hears it. You're view can only be true if I happen to actually be a liar. So, you admit my view is true since you are absolutely a liar. Who have I judged and pointed the finger at? LibProlifer, you dense mother fucker. Side: Muhammad
1
point
The facts are in, you are a liar. Since the discussion ventured into whether you were a liar, the fact that you are a liar got presented. I don't ever remember starting that discussion. If discussing whether or not I'm a liar is really that big a deal why not just call CNN or the BBC to submit a news article about it? In your random bullshit posts of bullshit. That's that. Back and forth, back and forth. This way, that way. Left a bit, please. Yes. I'm not surprised. A response expected from an imbecile. You've studied idiots a lot in the natural habitat. What sort of noises do idiots make? Mate, what are you doing down there? I can't see you amongst the dry wilderness! Wait, I can. You're so well camouflaged amongst the herds of idiots I can't tell the difference between them or you. You're a genius. How did you manage to wear such a good disguise! At least you didn't scare the herd away! What is amusing about making up unbelievable lies? "What is amusing about making up unbelievable lies?" Your face. Changing the subject? Please do. I'm getting quite bored. If it is not wrong to do something, why don't you do that thing? I'm not really used to telling lies. Well, there's nothing wrong with telling a nice little white lie occasionally. OK You'd make a rubbish clown. Sorry, mate. I'm just lying. Don't take it personally, I'm only lying You would make a lovely clown in reality. Chill. So, go ahead and be proud, you are 100% for sure a liar Please, don't tell me that. I really don't want to imagine that my DNA is lying 100%. Wrong. An explanation is not judged based on the idiot who hears it. Alright, go back to bed Socrates. So, you admit my view is true since you are absolutely a liar Yes, I admit your view is true. At least I lied for you this time. LibProlifer, you dense mother fucker. I thought she liked me. I thought it was you who judged her, the same with anybody whose not on your side. Side: Jesus Christ
I don't ever remember starting that discussion. Your memory is unreliable. You've studied idiots a lot in the natural habitat. No, only over the internet. Your face. Another question you can't answer. I'm not really used to telling lies. That would explain why you have been so bad at it. Please, don't tell me that. You don't want to be proud? I really don't want to imagine that my DNA is lying 100%. Was this another one of your attempts at humor? Alright, go back to bed Socrates. What a terrible insult. I must run away now. Yes, I admit your view is true. At least I lied for you this time. It is so sad that the smartest thing you ever said is a lie to you. I thought she liked me. No, she hates me. I thought it was you who judged her, the same with anybody whose not on your side. The projection is strong with you. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Your memory is unreliable. So I guess you're saying that your own memory is bad now? (I'm using the same rhetoric that you use, btw) P.S. Of course this comment didn't make any sense. And no, I'm not insulting myself. No, only over the internet. Had any successful experiments? None that gone terribly wrong? Another question you can't answer. I did answer. Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. That would explain why you have been so bad at it. I would have to be pretty bad at something if I've never even tried it. That makes sense. I must be pretty bad at things that I haven't actually done. I can't be good at licking windows if I've never actually done it. Was this another one of your attempts at humor? What does make you laugh then? Anything other than when you hear idiots talking, that is? Cartmans favourite past time, laughing about idiots. OK, Cartman, I'm not gonna be talking about idiots today. What a terrible insult. I must run away now. Don't run too far away from home, though. I don't intend on making you homeless. I'm not all that mean. It is so sad that the smartest thing you ever said is a lie to you. You really look for an opportunity for "those" comments, don't you? No, she hates me I wasn't talking about whether she liked you. I said ""I thought she liked me"". The projection is strong with you. May the force be with you. Thank you. Side: Jesus Christ
0
points
1
point
Cartman has totally mis-interpretated what you have said due to his own stupidity. Can you explain that joke to Cartman, please? You stupid fuck. We are talking about what AveSatanas said you dumb mother fucker. He's acting up and dumb at the moment. You can't even admit that you don't know who Muhammad Ali is after already admitting you don't know who Muhammad Ali is. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
If ghostheadx/AveSatanas was making a joke, he would have directly said "what if the name mohammed was turned around into muhammed and Jesus was taking on the boxer, that would be really funny, oh wait, the title heading already says Muhammed!". Now that would be funny. What someone says with their words is what someone literally says with their words. But instead what ghostheadx literally said with his words was, "some people think muhammed refers to the boxer and not the profit". Allow me to let you on a little hint now. Muhammed was a misspelling most likely on ghostheadx's part as well as the thread-creator, do you know how I know? Because he spelt the word "prophet" as "profit" instead. But according to you that is somehow just for the humour factor, obviously. Now go sit in the corner, weirdo. Side: Jesus Christ
Your suggestion isn't funny at all. Ghostheadx did not make joke. Profit was a typo. The prophet Muhammad was not named Ali. Using the letter u or the letter o makes absolutely no difference. Adding the name Ali is the only difference since only the boxer was named Ali. Ghostheadx wasn't using humor, he was trying to save you from looking like a stupid forgetful fucko. Side: Muhammad
1
point
How on earth was ghostheadx trying to prevent me from looking stupid? His post wasn't even addressed to me. What a baloney. And I know for a fact that you were indeed talking about ghostheadx, I was almost about to let you off then, but I know now that you weren't talking about AveSatanas. Ali applies to both names, show me the link. TrumpHair has showed me a link to this thread, but even he hasn't shown a link to google. Will you do it? Yes you will, now do as your told, at least if saves you from having to put out the laundry instead for ya ma. Side: Jesus Christ
Interesting question, why are you not burning in Hell if you have the right to exist outside of it as a sinner? The truth is that you do not have that right, time outside of Hell as a sinner is a gift from God who is showing mercy desiring that you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection to be saved from dying forever in Hell's fire like you are dying now in your sins. Side: Muhammad
Actually, BOTH are "Prophets of Islam". The only value either of them have is their ability to keep these two religions from hating one another. Neither has done that job, their value has dropped to below the recent price of a barrel of crude, IMO. If they can't even control their own radicals, why "worship" them?? If Jesus is claimed by BOTH religions, why can't he control his animals?? Muhammad is a "Johnny-come-lately" compared to Jesus, and without comparable DNA. It seems , by closer connections, HE should have responsibility and straighten out this religious mess! It seems over 20 centuries should be enough time! HE just hasn't shown up at the "shop"! Maybe its time for a new CEO! Side: Muhammad
0
points
Jesus ain't no damn Ishmaelite. He was an Israelite from the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14). Arabs and Israelites are not the same people. Allah the rock is the god of the Ishmaelites, The Most High God is the God of the Israelites only, none else (Joel 2:27). So please explain how Christ was a prophet of "Islam". Also, please show me Islam, Christianity/Catholicism, Buddhism, etc... in the Bible. Side: Jesus Christ
0
points
Ay all praises bro. I can't wait either. Israel need to hurry up and repent so we can get the hell out of this mug man. Esau is annoying as hell. I can't stand that damn red devil. We have to take back what is ours, what The Most High God gave us, we have to take it back. It's our property, not these damn heathens. Side: Jesus Christ
I wit you? Is that like dim wit? The only problem you have is that in Revelation, Jesus is shown to have a white head, and His face just happens to be part of His head and it's all white, boy. You are trying to change Him into a darkie nigga who hates whitely like you and yo momma Malcom X. Side: Muhammad
0
points
1
point
Yo momma tawt you po hygiene. You've done nothing but pollute this planet with your diseases that you had with you when you crawled out of that cave you came from. Take your filthy cursed self back to your cave were you belong and take all your diseases with you. You don't deserve to live you nasty beast. My dogs are cleaner than you and I would never let them touch you, but I will let them kill you :). My animals have more authority than you do (Exodus 11:7). That is how much my God hates yo nasty crusty cracka cursed ass. No do us all a favor and go jump off a bridge, it'll be one less animal this earth has to deal with :D Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
In one corner, we have an ignorant racist who twists scriptural references to create their own pseudo-religion in order to make themselves feel better. In the other corner, we have an ignorant racist who twists scriptural references to create their own pseudo-religion in order to make themselves feel better. 3.....2......1......FIGHT! Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
https://www.youtube.com/ SMDH. The word Quran means to recite you uneducated American. Where was the Quran recited from? The Holy Bible dumb dumb. So how the in da hell was Jesus a "prophet of Islam"? Christ was an Israelite you dumb donkey. I can see you have never read our Book. Side: Jesus Christ
The only problem you have is that in Revelation, Jesus is shown to have a white head, and His face just happens to be part of His head and it's all white, boy. You are trying to change Him into a dumb darkie nigga who hates whitey like you and yo momma Malcom X. Side: Jesus Christ
0
points
Well, here we are. "The word" says "Christ was an Israelite you dumb donkey I can see youi never read our book." "Our Book" was written by the Emperor Constantine, what seven hundred years after "the fact". It was "translated from ancient Aramaic and ancient Hebrew from stone tablets that were barely readable in many cases, often with large chunks missing (to be filled in at the Emperors discretion), or Papyrus, (also with parts missing). The words "translation" and "interpretation" mean an educated guess at best. This "truth" was hand copied many times before it was again translated into Koine Greek, copied by hand several times, then again "translated into Latin and copied again several times and then translated AGAIN into Elizabethan English and printed. After that there sprung up several "versions", all with differences in "translation" with opportunities for error at EVERY STEP! YOU don't even know what book you are reading! "Today, it reads like a bad acid trip!" When I get a signed copy from the original author, (Shouldn't be hard for an "all powerful God") I'll believe! Until then, they are all fiction writers to me! Enjoy your book. Side: Muhammad
You will be a good Muslim. Bow to them and say God's name is Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet. .... try to get in with the strongest group so you'll be more likely to keep your head on your shoulders. I suggest you move to Iran now, as it looks like that country will remain strong into WWIII or the Battle of Armageddon, whichever comes first. Atheists and Muslims are two peas in a pod. Muslims are atheists who became afraid of getting beheaded so they decided to convert to Islam. Side: Jesus Christ
Interesting question, why are you not burning in Hell if you have the right to exist outside of it as a sinner? The truth is that you do not have that right, time outside of Hell as a sinner is a gift from God who is showing mercy desiring that you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection to be saved from dying forever in Hell's fire like you are dying now in your sins. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
What If I don't repent and bow down to you and your silly god. Are you gonna open the ground wide open so I full down into the center of the earth, like goddey did to those people who entered the certain behind the tabernacle? What a lovely Christian, who has a god who kills people just because they enter a somehow-sacred room within the temple of "holies". It's in your Bible, look it up. Stop whinging. Side: Jesus Christ
In Hell you will be sorry, but it will be too late and you will bow against your will at the name of Jesus and say "Jesus Christ is Lord". God will get the honor He deserves from you if He has to force it out of you in Hell. That is the only time God will violate your free will.....and it is His right to do so as He created you. Side: Muhammad
1
point
1
point
1
point
You're getting your Bible stories mixed up. You should try actually reading the Bible, not just taking some alphabet soup pieces and acting like you actually read the Book. I suggest starting in Genesis, while at the same time reading the Gospel according to John. Read Genesis through the 2nd Book of the Kings, then go back and read it again, and read the Gospel of John at least twice during each Old Testament reading. The Revelation of Jesus Christ (the last book of the Bible) is a wonderful in the mix, and the single chapter Book of Jude as well as the 2 Books of Peter, the Book of James, and the 3 books of John. That's a good beginner course. The Book of Romans is also excellent for a beginner as it sets out a solid and pretty simple explanation of God's justice, mercy, and love. Don't act like you know anything about the Bible until you have actually read it enough to know a little about it. Side: Muhammad
1
point
I have read far more about the Bible than you have. The old testament is filled with stories of King David, Solomon etc, raiding innocent cities full of women and children and stealing their belongings, slaying them and stripping them naked. Sick in the head you are! And it is the same god who opened up the ground and let the core of the earth swallow three men up just because they entered to tent of the covenant. Side: Jesus Christ
1
point
The devil didn't say anything about the Bible cause it never existed. Oh, and the word "bible" has never actually been mentioned within the Bible itself. So the book doesn't even address it's title. Nor did the Satan that you obsess over say anything to do with his opinion on the scriptures either. More ad hominem from you yet again. Side: Jesus Christ
I've not only read hundreds of books "about" the Bible, I am on my third cover to cover reading and planning to read cover to cover at least once each year along with selected readings such as I suggested to you...that was you, wasn't it? The readings I suggested for beginners is the same readings I have done for thirty years.......basically, I also read several other books in the Bible several times throughout the year. I had two years of Bible College, and one full semester of college history of the Bible. You don't know what you are talking about. There are lots of books and writings "about" the Bible made by people who hate God and don't really know the first thing about the Bible. It sounds like you are a student of those devil brained fools. Oh, I already replied to this post...yeah, it was you, mixing up Bible stories like a fool being used for jokes on sitcom TV. Side: Muhammad
1
point
Who appointed you "GODS spokesman"? How do you get to decide who goes to hell or gets punished because he doesn't believe in YOUR god? I don't think any more of Muslims than I do of Christians...or any less. Where do YOU get the right to tell ME to "repent"?? Just give me one reason to believe in your god and I will! Um, never mind, I want it direct. Side: Jesus Christ
No. I am NOT GODS enemy. I don't hate GOD. I'm not bitter about ANYTHING. I don't believe in hell. How can I hate, be bitter about, be an enemy of something I simply don't believe in?? I don't know how YOU feel, but, I have few (if any) enemies. I don't consider someone I disagree with, an enemy. We may agree about a lot of other things. Side: Jesus Christ
What do you want me to tell you? You want me to tell you to be proud, resist God, tell Him to go to Hell and then you get to roam free in victory over God? Is that what you want me to tell you? Sorry, your on your own there. You are in the wrong. I'm not going to lie. Side: Muhammad
I CAN"T "roam free in a victory over" something I don't believe exists! I would be lying if I said I did! What do you want ME to do...LIE?? And as far as you telling me to go to hell, I don't believe in THAT either. The Jews worship the same god, I mean, even Jesus was a Jew. THEY don't believe in hell either! Funny, Every Judean /Christian religion goes by different facts! ALL are too violent for me! I don't like violent religions. I'm not going to lie. I really don't WANT you to DO anything....except believe what you will, and let ME believe what I believe. Side: Jesus Christ
You are bitter against God, and you make yourself repulsive to Him by remaining proud and defiant against Him ruling over you. You are propelling yourself into Hell and can only blame yourself. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, He's offering you forgiveness, full pardon as the One who died for your sins and rose from the dead to be the justifier of all who believe on Him. Side: Jesus Christ
Your sins are your problem, they are what keeps you away from God. The cross is His remedy for your sins, He died on the cross for your sin so He can reconcile you with God in His resurrection if you will receive Him by faith as your Savior? Why go your own way as if you have forever silenced God? You have not silenced Him, He is still calling you to be saved from Hell. Why won't you trust Him? Do you think you are too good for Him, and too good to die forever in Hell the same as you are dying forever in this world? You need to care more about yourself, and admit your guilt so you can find mercy through the blood of Jesus Christ which He gave as payment for your sins......receive Him and His forgiveness before it's too late or you will hate God forever in Hell and it's your own choice, your own fault, and blaming God won't get you out. Side: Jesus Christ
No. I have no hate for your GOD. I simply don't believe it exists. No hatred, no animosity s long as you keep "HIM" to yourself, I'll keep MY beliefs to myself. Problem is, most Christians (and Muslims) demand that THEY make the laws, that others MUST follow their rules or suffer THEIR punishment., the punishment THEY decide THEIR "god" , through THEM, will administer. I don't care, in the least, what you wish to believe, as long as you don't "make the rules" for ME to live by. Live however YOU want, let ME live the way I want. Don't force YOUR beliefs down my throat, don't make ME follow YOUR rules and I don't give a DAMN what you want to believe...live, and let live. I have nothing against YOUR god, enjoy your belief. Just let ME live MY life and believe what I see as truth. I'm on MY own, you are on YOUR own....that's just fine with me, as long as YOU don't try to run MY life with YOUR laws, I won't give a damn what you do or think. It's okay by me. Side: Jesus Christ
You show your hatred for God by referring to Him as "it". You are an it created by God. We are things. God is God and not a thing. Things are created. You show your hatred for God by calling Him "it". You are arguing against something that is not God. Atheists hate God because there is no sound argument against Him and they are losing everything in death....it's pride, just plain ugly pride and it goes before a fall. Atheists always have to invent nonsensical arguments against an "it" god who is not God. The first thing Atheism does is deny that God is God, and they when they argue against God it is not Him they are arguing against. Saying He does not exist only shows you hate Him and want Him to leave you in Hell alone where you can curse Him and blame Him for your pain. He doesn't want to give you that, but He loves you and is going to let you have it because you keep saying you want reality with no sign of His goodness, proof that you have no evidence of His love. Hell will be your proof, and in Hell you will be wrong the same as you are wrong now. It's probably too late for you to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you have probably hardened yourself against God so much that you can't say sorry to Him for hating Him, can't say sorry to Him for your sins, can't say sorry to Him for being so stinking proud acting like you are better than Him. Side: Muhammad
Again, I CAN'T, and DO NOT HATE something that I believe does NOT exist. If I refer to the Easter Bunny as IT, do I necessarily HATE "It"? If I refer to the "Saint of Christmas" (Saint Nicholas) as IT do I necessarily hate "IT". You apparently hate anything you refer to as "IT", I do NOT. There are few things I hate, I don't like the feeling of "hate". Hate seems to be a word, or emotion you can't live without .... I CAN! I don't like hate, you can't make me hate YOU. I feel sorry for you carrying around so much hate ... it seems every other word. I try to stay away from the word AND the emotion. You would do better to NOT be so hateful to ME. I have not said one word of hate to you. I love that you have faith, enjoy it, and stop picking at, and hating DTHERS beliefs. Side: Jesus Christ
So why do you keep pounding your fist with caps if you don't hate God? And why do you sound so angry toward God if you don't hate Him? You have written long articles explaining why you hate God....you think He's not good enough for you so you deny that He is God. In your heart, you have murdered Him and you think that by insisting He is not there you have succeeded in replacing Him with yourself. I'm not impressed, you hate God and you love death and are too proud to admit the truth on either point. Side: Muhammad
You are demanding Hell fire; you are saying the only way you will believe Hell is real is to find yourself in the fire and unable to escape....and you are going to get the proof you are demanding while you say it is not there. Your a parading old fool and God is going to run out of patience with you. You need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection, receive Him by faith as your Savior, be pardoned through faith in His blood which paid for your sins...... If you don't see any reason in that simple message for you to believe on Jesus, then go on your own way and demand that God prove He has the right to rule against you for your sins..... and don't go playing innocent. If you say you have not sinned, I'm sure we could ask your family and close friends to name the things you have done wrong. All wrongdoing is sin against God, and always has negative consequences on you and those around you, and I'm sure they would testify to your sins. You'll take your sins to Hell with you if you wont' believe God loves you so much that He took on a body Himself to pay for your sins so He can consider your offenses paid for and you can be pardoned. . Side: Muhammad
Absolutely! I've made mistakes, I've done things I'm not proud of I will unhappily admit that. however, I don't tell other people how they should live, only that they should do nothing to hurt others.. That's not "playing innocent". I NEVER would say I have not "sinned". I have done things I am not proud of, some by mistake, some I intended. We all make mistakes. I don't need a god to tell me that. I DO try to learn from those mistakes, and try to not make them again. I don't need a "god" to tell me I was wrong, I just try to make up for the mistakes and improve. I don't feel I need a "god" to improve. Right is right, wrong is wrong. My conscience punishes me, when necessary. Side: Jesus Christ
So you are as good as most people, better than many, and not as bad as some? That makes you innocent? In whose eyes are you innocent, and are they you judges? Are they the ones who can see all of the details of your life, in every word, thought, and imagination? Why can't you stop making mistakes? What is wrong with you? Is your guilty conscience enough punishment, and if it's enough, why should you die? Will your guilt ever end? What are you hoping for in death? How do you know you will get what you hope for? Who can assure you of your hope? Don't you deserve more time? Side: Jesus Christ
It's justice for sinners to die. Our sin makes us ungodly, unholy, unworthy of being with God. We need mercy to be saved from dying. Death is separation from God. We are in the first death, dying, separated from God by our sins. If the first death is finalized and we are unforgiven, there is no place for us but Hell which we deserve as sinners, the same as we deserve to die. God loves us so much that He died in our place as the Son of God, given by the Father to make peace through the blood of His cross, to reconcile us with God in His resurrection. You can be completely forgiven and reconciled with God, and know Him as your Father and Heaven as your home. You can know. I would if I were you, but you have to decide for yourself, and if you say "I don't believe it", or "I don't need it", or "I can't believe it", or anything like that, you are choosing death over life and you will wake up in Hell by your own choice paying for your own sins. You owe God, and God will require it of you. You can't escape guilt in death. You can't change the history of your life, you can't undo the wrongs you have done....you can only pay in Hell if you will not believe God Himself paid for you when He died in your place as the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and offers you full pardon in His resurrection. It's good news, the hope of eternal life, you can face the trial of dying with joy in knowing eternal life is yours and heaven is your home. We recently said "see ya later" to a dear old friend of mine, 80 yrs old, struck by cancer which was stage 4 when found less than six months ago. He went through it with hope and joy which could not be quenched by the trial of his body, and never stopped loving the Lord or the people he was leaving behind, desiring all of them to know the love of God as he knew it.......and I want you to know God's love. You can know it for sure. I seem to sound harsh at times, but the truth is going to sound harsh if we don't want to concede what we feel is our right. We do not have the right to live on Earth as sinners, and we do not have the right to live outside of Hell in eternity after God Himself paid our price in death in His own body. There is no other hope than the hope of God in Jesus Christ. Side: Jesus Christ
Since you seem to be listening, I guess God appointed me to be His spokesman as He tried to reach you before He runs out of patience with you and lets you propel yourself by your sins against Him into the fire of Hell like a moth to the flame, loving your journey in flight away from God. Side: Muhammad
You seem very touchy for somebody who insists that God does not care. If God does not care about you, why does it bother you so much when I say he does? Why do you feel you have to go on and on trying to prove He does not care for you? You're fighting against God and it's a losing battle. You won't hurt me, it's only you who you are hurting as you reject God's love. Side: Muhammad
If I could decide who goes to Hell, nobody would go to Hell but I'm not God. It's not me you have offended, it's not my law you broke. I can simply tell by your own words that you are turned away from and against God and there is no place for your way in Heaven, you will be turned into Hell if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not my decision or my desire. If it were up to me, you would believe on Jesus in His resurrection and receive Him by faith as your Savior and be saved from Hell...but you won't, will you? That's your decision, not mine, you are making it and if you won't listen to be warned against what you are doing, then don't listen. Why in the world do you feel like you have to keep arguing? Side: Muhammad
Actually, I keep arguing because I keep finding arguments in my profile. I keep seeing the suggestion that I go to hell. I keep seeing things that say I "hate God", I'm a sinner, I don't deserve to be breathing Gods air, I should burn in hell! No, I DO NOT HATE GOD! I don't like hate. I CAN NOT hate something that doesn't exist (even if it seems to be a very cruel and pompous entity). All I ask is that this entity show up.....preferably without a vicious show of hatred, and prove to the millions of OTHERS that don't believe he exists, that HE is real. I don't think that's TO MUCH to ask! Simply make an unquestionable appearance, hopefully explain WHY HIS LOVE is necessarily so cruel so often, THEN HE will justifiably, I guess, have reason to send HIS CREATIONS to hell! I REFUSE TO GO, without reason! How is it that Jews believe in the same GOD, but do not believe HELL exists? See? There is so much confusion in religion, and everyone "believes" that THEY are correct, that, well, What IS one to believe? I can't believe YOU, there are too many who say you are wrong. (millions of ....creations.) Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc.etc.. How can ANY divine entity "rule" under such confusion? How can a supreme ruler allow such confusion....and expect ALL to believe?? I have read that a very wise man named Galileo once said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same "god" who endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." (A translation, of course). So WHY should this God punish ME for using those gifts, rather than listen to unsubstantiated, human writings of what HE, supposedly, decreed?? I think that is a reasonable use of "His Gifts"...if that is truly what they are. Please do not accuse me of "hate" that I am NOT guilty of. Side: Jesus Christ
You keep arguing because you are obsessed with convincing yourself that you have the right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner, and you are obsessed with convincing yourself that right cannot be denied in death, but rather you try to tell yourself that death confirms your right to exist outside of Hell as a sinner. You got it backwards, your death proves you do not have the right to exist in life as a sinner, and Hell is the only place God has to confine sinners, where the fire burns against their sin the way their sin burns in passion against their Creator who they hate for allowing them to be in an existence with suffering. Your whole problem is that you hate God for bringing you into a world where evil is present. Instead of thanking God for Creating you, you hate Him for Creating you so He cannot show you mercy because you are too obsessed with hating Him....you can't see that HE IS BEING MERCIFUL WITH YOU IN HIS PATIENCE AND HIS PATIENCE WITH YOU IS WEARING THIN. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU HAVE LEFT? You're throwing your time out the window as one foot is falling into your grave and the other is on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell, and God who loves you so much that He died for you is pleading with you to reason with Him and believe on His Son in His resurrection to be saved from Hell. You can have it your way, but you won't like it in Hell. I guess you don't want what is good for you, God's mercy, and that's why you are cursing Him and dying. Side: Jesus Christ
God showed up, as the Man Christ Jesus, to die for the sins of man. He paid your price in death so you can be pardoned in His resurrection. You are asking Him to do what He already did. You will be left in Hell and face Him as your Judge when He forever banishes evil in the Lake of Fire, and purges His creation of sin as you accuse Him of not being able or caring enough to do. God is giving you time, because if He ended evil in the world now, you would be burning in Hell as an anti-Christ sinner getting what you deserve from your Creator for going against Him. The way you talk about God, it really amazes me that He gives you more time at all. Side: Jesus Christ
|