He does sign on. He does a non-job that's either poorly or unpaid, so he doesn't have to claim job-seeker's allowance, which would force him to look for work. He receives income support, child benefit and has his rent, council tax, etc. paid by the tax-payer. His definition is irrelevant to whether or not he's a lazy sponger. Why is it relevant? I was wondering if you were similarly 'employed'?
You didn't answer. You claimed that it had been debunked without actually saying how, by who, when or with what evidence. As far as we know matter and energy have always existed. No magic involved.
any proof? or more assumptions? as i said I can arrange for you to meet and you can ask him personally/directly I have answered my position No JSA/income support/housing etc funny how you get all huffy when questioned about work hypocricy?
I used the very link you gave me for the eye and darwin for example. you only answered half. I have pointed this out so yes I answered So if we KNOW that things like matter and energy can/have always existed then based on what we know God can/has always existed?
You know him. Ask him if I'm right. I can assure you that I am, though I'll openly admit that I have no proof that you'll accept. I was pointing out why the subject came up on this thread. Someone else mentioned what you do for a living (or not) and I was wondering if you'd taken up a similar position to your friend. I haven't got at all huffy about work, myself. I work. I don't claim benefits. I don't live off a system that I claim to despise.
That link shows that you're wrong. You claimed the opposite, without showing why. We know matter and energy exist. We don't know that god exists.
I have, you are the one having the problem accepting it Funny thing you always want evidence/proof/references, yet here I am taking you to the source and you dont want to know and despite no proof you insist on bringing this up I think you are full of it to be honest, and this, based on what we now know, prooves that no amount of evidence/proof or even the original source is acceptable to you My job situation is in no way linked to anjems or yours or anybody elses. and yes I consider him a friend which I assume is the real issue here? So despite not knowing what I do for a living, you've decided that my time upon here may impact upon my job. It doesn't. Sorry. This was 'huffy' considering you 'assumed' I was in the same position as my 'friend'
how was I wrong? because you say so? based on what we know he does. how is it that god has to have an origin/source/creator, but matter and energy dont
The point is "your friend" claims money from a state he loathes and its annoying, if you are subsidising your 6 or 7 kids through DHS, it is a very negative Muslim in UK Stereotype....ie, dominating countries through the womb?
Why am I going to waste my time meeting a bigoted lunatic, who's to lazy to work, in order to ask him how exactly he sponges off the state that he despises? You seem to be the one struggling to accept his sponging, so ask him yourself. I don't care if you choose to associate with nutcases. Your choice. If you can't see that he dodged the question from Lauren Booth (don't know her Islamic name, sorry) using semantics, then you need to watch the interview again. He specifically names the benefit that he's not claiming. He doesn't say what he is claiming. I didn't assume anything. I asked you whether you shared his 'employment'. It was a question and I didn't challenge your answer to it. My answer you wasn't huffy, either.
Somalian families with 8 kids 2 houses, all paid for by us mugs..... The idea being push the population of Muslims up for the next generation at others expense
The link shows that you're wrong. It clearly explains why the evolution of the eye isn't a problem for the theory. I haven't claimed that god has to have a source. I've said that you haven't shown any evidence that one exists.
I'd agree with a lot of that, but both countries weren't exactly doing brilliantly under their previous rulers, either. Getting rid of Saddam can't be seen as a bad thing, nor would doing away with the Taliban, but it's who comes next that could be a big problem.
so why bring him up? Still with the doesnt work. define work? I know the guy spends a lot of his own time and money in doing lots of things I KNOW what he gets I asked him, YOU are having difficulty accepting YOU are WRONG. This was a piece inthe Daily Mail, who also said he gets 24 hour police protection WRONG He specifically mentions tax credits and child benefits WRONG AGAIN Bottom line you are not prepared to accept the evidence or proof. Methinks the internet Warrior way You assumed and I replied. simples I found your reply huffy
I agree with quite a lot of what you say SNIAW, just not your religious views. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have very little to do with religion, unless you include George Bush's lunacy or that of the Taliban.
and I answered it using your link. Then repeated it natural selection and the evolution of the eye are different theories You keep asking who created God etc etc yet accept that matter and energy may have always existed
