|
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
|
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
|
<a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>
Is there really this money sitting waiting?
Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
|
Comments
|
Page 20 of 24 pages ‹ First < 18 19 20 21 22 > Last › |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 | 01:55 AM
"Speaking in tongues" is proof God exists?
Is god a dumb fuck? If a supreme being really wanted to prove its existance to mortal humans, there are much more convincing ways of doing it. Why not do something that leaves no room for doubt? Something like...say... verbally and visually announce your presence to whole world at once while at the same time curing all diseases, stopping all wars, silencing the volcanoes, eliminating tsnamis, earthquakes and tornadoes, etc. That would satisfy me. I'm not holding my breath though.
I think it was Isaac Azimov who said something to the effect of: If a god in this universe, which is billions of light-years across, was really concerned about what happens on an insignificant planet like Earth, it can't be much of a god. |
Wandering Raven
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 | 09:47 AM
If God wanted all of us to believe, then why the hell would he tell one person the "truth" and have him go around to tell everyone else?
If God were smart, wouldn't he just tell us all at the same time? It would be a lot faster. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 | 02:29 AM
Hey, as Captain Al pointed out, the universe is billions of LY across. He can't be everywhere you know!
No, a good manager knows when to delagate. If we skip over that nasty bit of nepotism (it was 2000 years ago, everyone will have forgotten), God is obviously picking out the most suitable person to spread his message. And of course act in locum deus to make sure everyone follows it or is ruthlessly downsized (usually by about a headheight).
Makes perfect sense. |
Dilence Dogood
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 | 04:42 PM
Hey uh, captian Al You are A dumb fuck fuck, I didi not read your whole message, but i read enough, there is proof read it's called the HOLY BIBLE!
P.S. I'm only 11 years old |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 | 06:10 PM
Dilence Dogood, only 11 years old and already know everything? I'm sorry, the Bible is not proof God exists any more than the song 'Here Comes Santa Claus" is proof Santa Claus exists.
You're only 11, so I'll go easy on you. I won't call you a dumb fuck in return which by the way is called an 'ad hominem' attack. That's when you attack the person instead of the argument. It's usually done in desperation when you haven't got a valid counter-argument. If you have, please state it.
Maybe in your next 11 years you might learn something about the real world. Get back to us when you've had a little life experience and learned how to read and write coherently. That will allow you to grasp some simple concepts and see how power-hungry religions have used your trust and gullibility against you to turn you into just another sheep in the flock who hands over money to them.
And I won't say I told you so. |
truth101
|
Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 | 03:50 AM
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not God set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limit can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are all his creatures condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood |
x-j
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 | 04:43 AM
this is actually disgusting, who do people think they are that they think they are worthy to challenge God!!!! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 | 05:08 AM
"[W]ho do people think they are that they think they are worthy to challenge God!!!!
Of course I am worthy to challenge 'God', after all you regularly challenge hundreds of other gods every day. There are a very large number of religions in the world, many having more than one god. You are just as dismissive of these gods as I am of yours.
You stories about a bearded sky-wizard are no more convincing to me than those about Zeus, Gilgamesh, Osiris, Odin or Cthulhu. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 | 09:12 AM
Hey man, don't start dissing on Cthulhu. You'll get the geeks in here trying to summon Hastur on your ass. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 | 09:56 AM
Nah, Hatur's nowt but a big bag of wind and I eat Tindalos Hounds for breakfast (they were free gifts in my Cthon Flakes and I didn't notice them until it was too late!)
Besides, I though Cthulhu was just a twisted misrepresentation of the FSM contrived by evil pirate-hating Xians! |
x-j
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 | 02:55 AM
look, ye'll all realise how wrong ye are when Judgement day comes, its just a pity that it'll take ye that long to realise ho great God is!!!! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 | 03:48 AM
x-j wrote:
"look, ye'll all realise how wrong ye are when Judgement day comes, its just a pity that it'll take ye that long to realise ho great God is!!!!"
And on that day, he shall pick me up with his great noodly appendage, stare deep into my soul and see my great love of all things pasta and the hours I have spent instructing my daughter in the ways of pirates. I hope he will be satisfied and grant me a place in heaven somewhere near a stripper factory. Ramen.
Seriously, x-j, the "What if you're wrong?" argument is self-defeating. What if you're wrong? What if you've chosen the wrong religion to follow? Did you even choose what religion to follow? What if you're following the right religion but for the wrong reasons? What if that makes God angry? What did God give you a brain for, if not to use it?
It's this last one that clinches it for me. By your own credo, God has given you a brain capable of understanding the twisted logic of quantum physics and set-theory, the subtleties of Mozart and Bach, or Flaubert and Shakespeare, the complexities of chess and go. What for, if not to question and prod and probe and understand?
Who are we to challenge God you ask? We are the people created by, empowered by, and authorized by God to do just that. Do you really think so little of your god and his creations that you think a couple of questions will unsettle him? |
Onesimus P.
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 | 06:32 PM
Hi everyone,
Onesimus P. here again. (It |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 | 11:18 AM
"1. |
Onesimus P.
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 | 12:44 AM
Hey,
Thanks, David B., for responding. I really appreciate it! Especially liked your "history as a web" analogy.
Now I just gotta figure out what format the teacher wants this assignment to have...
😊
Any other takers for the 5 questions?
Cranky? Charybdis? Captain Al? Carter S.?
cricket: *chirp* *chirp*
Hmmm - today's post was brought to you by the letter C...
(sorry, Couldn't resist!)
Thanks, y'all! |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 | 08:59 AM
1) I think that science should always be regarded above superstition - science's record clearly shows it to be the better method of understanding the universe. Whether a complete understanding is possible is something I doubt, given human nature and limits, but I think it's an effort worth making.
My parents didn't particularly shape this view, they rather never pushed any particular idea on me and let me develope my own as I grew older. I was never religious or had any real kind of faith that I can recall, but it's only been in my later years that I've become more of an open skeptic and atheist. This is almost certainly due to various personal encounters I've had as well as becoming more aware of how much harm blind faith and gullibility can cause.
2) Who is most influential is very hard to determine, but obviously Jesus, Muhammad, Einstein, Darwin, Mad King George, Newton, Washington, Hitler, Stalin, and the like have helped shape our present world, for better or worse. As a part of this world I can't help but have been influenced by every one of them, mostly indirectly but also more directly though my interest in science and my enjoyment of a good science-content book. I believe that the science side has had a more positive impact on the world than the mystical side, though overall total impact is probably comparable.
3)Obviously the Big Three religious texts (Torah, New Testament, Koran) but also <i>Origin, Principia, the Donation of Constantine, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds, The Prince, Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto,</i> and many others.
Again, the sciencey books have had more of a positive impact on me, particularly <i>Origin</i> and <i>Madness</i>, but all of them have helped shape our world and I'm a product of that world.
4)Oh, Leonardo (particularly because he was also an engineer), Titian, Ruben, van Gogh (I love <i>The Starry Night</i>, John Williams, (the early) George Lucas, Spielberg, Altman, Asimov, Simak, Heinlein (when he wasn't flouting his sexual beliefs), George MacDonald Fraser (gotta love the anti-hero Flashman), and probably dozens more as I think of them later.
5) Never be afraid to question anything, and never be afraid to admit when you're wrong.*
*I was torn between this and "There's more to life than girls", but I haven't been able to determine if this is in fact the case. 😉 |
Onesimus P.
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 | 09:32 PM
I turned in the assignment on Thursday; thanks for your help, Charybdis and David B.! |
Carter S
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 | 10:06 PM
Sorry I wasn't here for that Onesimus P.
I would have been happy to do it for you.
Hope it went well. |
britney ffrom delaware!!!!
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 05:38 PM
proving that god exists is like proving your love for somone. you can tell them, show them but people would still have no way of proving their love. the love is just there.
without criticizing anyone about there beleifs, this is directed to those athiest/skeptics. since you guys are the logical ones, wouldn't "i don't know if god exists" be the more logical way to go about this? also to those believers out there. woulen't be smarter to question your beliefs system? i know its called faith. but how can you just blindly follow something?
right now i am rding the fence. no side has swayed me to their view yet.
but i do have to say that the athiests have a better argument.
😊 |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 09:11 PM
Britney,
In my opinion your "love" analogy is flawed. Love is a human sensation that only exists as thought processes in our minds. It's not something you can see, hear or touch. You can't give it to someone to hold on to while you go to the bathroom. You can't store it in a vault for safe keeping.
Now if you say "I don't know if cats exist", I can easily find one and hold it in front of you. You could see it, touch it, hear it. But if you say "I don't think pink unicorns exist", I don't think I could find one to show you. That doesn't prove they don't exist but logic and reason should tell us they don't because we know it is a fictitious example invented for the purpose of proving a point. No need to maintain a belief just in case they might exist.
A 'god' capable of creating whole universes however must certainly have a physical presence that could be proven to exist. So if someone says "I don't know if god exists", why can't anyone produce any hard evidence? Luckily though we know 'God' was a human invention with no basis in fact, something that seems to be forgotten 2000 years after the fact. But for some strange reason there are deluded individuals who feel their fictitious god's existence deserves the same consideration given to tangible things even though they haven't a single shred of proof. And they certainly have no evidence to prove their god is any more real than the hundreds of other gods invented by previous cultures. Logic should tell us they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.
I feel perfectly okay simply saying god DOES NOT exist. But if someone could arrange a physical meeting and a demonstration of supernatural powers, I would be willing to change my beliefs. Until then... |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 | 09:23 PM
I forgot to add one thing to my last post:
I'm positive no one will be able to arrange a physical meeting with 'god' because whole story was just made up. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 | 03:49 AM
There are an infinite number of things I don't know don't exist. I see no particular reason to select one or two for 'special treatment'.
I guess if (hypothetically) it became mandatory to believe in a supernatural entity, I'd pick FSM for the beer volcano, or Jedi if I got to wave around fantastically dangerous hand-held plasma weaponry. |
britney
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 | 10:31 PM
i guess i just find it to be illogical and unscientific to say that you know. thats all.
to me it makes more sence to state your belief but alos leave room for yourself to be wrong.
i know you will say that you do leave room for yourself, but someone must prove it first. you will probably quote me on that to be clever. there are alot of "clever" people on this webste.lol
i guess what im trying to say is. a scientist that thinks he knows all the anwers doesnt get anywhere with his work. because whateever is out of his own belief system must be incorrect.
i dont think one can say they KNOW until they are dead.
bye bye. xxxxooooo! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 | 06:59 AM
A good scientist should always be aware that there is some uncertainty about anything, but there comes a point when it becomes not worth the effort to acknowledge it.
F'rinstance, science can not disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but even the promise of free goodies or money isn't enough to tempt most grown-ups to hang up stockings on Christmas Eve or put their lost teeth under their pillow.
Why not? Why dismiss something you can't prove doesn't exist?
Perhaps because some things are so unsubtantiated as to be not worth pursuing. If God exists it is up to him to provide evidence to us, the effort of us looking for evidence of him is not justifiable. |
Michael
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 | 08:24 PM
I know God exist beacuse miricals happen around me, 500 ppl saw the reserection of God, and you feel in youre heart that u have found him...God and Jesus' Gods son. |
Michael
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 | 08:26 PM
I am 12 years old and i know he exists |
Michael
|
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 | 08:35 PM
i dont care about some 1,000,000 dollars, beacuse the 1,000,000 dollar question is...will you go to heaven? And all I hope is that somebody..anybody...Christian, buddist, confuciats, toaist, muslim...anybody will read this and be convicted. I pray you yes YOU will reailise that jesus christ is lord. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 08:03 AM
500 people huh? Do you by any chance have a list of names? I don't need all of them, just 10 would suffice. After all, if 500 people saw it then at least some of them must have left a record of it somewhere other than the Bible. I mean, it would be ludicrous to base your whole life on the unconfirmed and contradictory assertions of a single book, wouldn't it? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 09:34 AM
Many more than 500 people claim to have seen ghosts, faries, UFOs, aliens, sea monsters, lake monsters, bigfoot, dragons, 'rods' and Elvis (after his supposed death and burial). |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 12:43 PM
"...and you feel in youre heart that u have found him..."
That's the key right there. You feel. It's all in your mind. One can get the same feeling about a character in a novel, yet that doesn't mean that character exists. Does a tsunami or earthquake victim get the same feeling as you do? |
Michael
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 03:15 PM
well i will give you a list of atleast 10 name's
Mathew,Mark,Luke,John,Titus,simon,peter,andrew,
James,mary. there you go, 10 please ask more questions |
Michael
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 03:18 PM
and in many jewish, lebonese and palastinian writings and scripts it tells of this "mirilce man whose rose from the dead" |
Michael
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 | 03:33 PM
God must existbeaucuse the universe exists. the universe around us must have cause, and God is that cause. Since somthing cant evolve from nothing there must be a creator involed, or somthing...but somthing cant come out of nothing so it must be God. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 | 05:04 AM
"Since somthing cant evolve from nothing there must be a creator involed"
Then where did the creator come from? |
Michael
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 | 03:37 PM
God is a god (God)and God can do anything...so God was always there..read genises 1:1 if have a bible...its a bit like a ring..its everlasting no beggining and no end. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 | 07:25 PM
Michael,
How do you know this? I suspect it was just made up without any supporting evidence in a desparate attempt to salvage a bad hypothesis. It's okay to speculate on possible scenarios but then you have to back it up with proof. You have none. |
Michael
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 | 03:14 AM
Please, cap. A1
you try prove that there isin't a God.....come on prove it. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 | 11:16 PM
Michael,
You are the one making the claim that God exists so the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove anything. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 | 05:35 AM
Michael wrote:
"[S]omthing cant come out of nothing so it must be God."
(A) If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
(B) If God does not need a cause, then everything does not need a cause.
Either (A) is true and you have infinite regress; God must have been caused (by the 'God over God' (GOG) and 'Multitude above God Over God' (MAGOG)).
Or (B) is true and it is allowable to posit something that is without cause, which you claim is God and others claim is the universe.
Michael wrote:
"[Y]ou try prove that there isin't a God.....come on prove it."
There are an infinite number of gods that can't be proven not to exist. Do you believe people who worship Zeus, Hera, Apollo, etc. are right too? You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, so do you still put lost teeth under your pillow?
I do not need any supernatural creatures to explain my world (provided I am willing to admit my knowledge is incomplete), and I "do not multiply entities without necessity" (Occam's razor). I see no reason to give any more consideration to your myths than to those of the Greeks, Romans, Goths, Celts, Norse, Mayans, Babylonians, etc. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 | 09:10 AM
OK Michael, give me names (assuming yours were correct, I don't have the inclination to research it) that aren't from the Bible. We're looking for evidence that isn't in the Bible, since relying solely on the Bible for all your 'proof' is circular reasoning.
And I see the whole 'First Cause' argument has been dealt with. For something like the 16th time, but I won't fault you for failing to read the preceeding 50+ pages. If nothing else, it keeps us in practice. However, one of these days I'm just going to make up a list of responses and start quoting them by number and sub letter (for the various flavors). |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 | 09:23 AM
Charybdis wrote:
"[O]ne of these days I'm just going to make up a list of responses and start quoting them by number and sub letter (for the various flavors)."
This one would be CE440. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 | 09:26 AM
Or evenCI200. |
katie
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 | 05:02 AM
hello. I can prove to you that God is real. In the bible Genesis 2 verses 4-26 it tells the story of the first humans to walk the face of the Earth, Adam and Eve. Scientists have found their actual skulls and are claiming that they are the first humans and were created by God. If that is not enough proof there are blood relatives to Jesus Christ, the son of God, on this Earth today. It says in scripture that he had brothers simon, judas, james, and 1 other name. They went off to have children and there are still relatives of Gods only Son on Earth TODAY. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 | 05:33 AM
Katie,
Where are these skulls right now? And who are the scientists who found them? In what scientific journal did they publish their findings? How did they determine they were the first humans and how do they know they were created by god?
Where are these "blood relatives to Jesus Christ"? How can you prove they are who you claim them to be?
I'm sorry to tell you the Bible is not proof of anything. Anybody can write a story. There is no evidence to show it has any basis in fact. On the contrary, many things described in it are not physically possible and the hundreds of different versions and translations indicate it has been altered many times to suit individual purposes. If it were the true word of a god, this would not have been necessary, or possible.
I'm sure if your story is true, it would have made headlines on every newspaper and TV show in the world, but we see nothing. Sorry, you haven't proved anything except that you are delusional. |
Charybdis
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 | 08:54 AM
Wow, that was just so completely made up as to be laughable.
I take it these aren't the same 'scientists' that have found human and pre-human remains from millions of years before the Bible says the universe was even created? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 | 02:59 AM
Look it's quite simple.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and everything in it by an act of pure will (plus a dash of holy pesto). We know this to be true because Pastafarians claim that the FSM began his act of creation by creating trees, mountains and a midgit.
Note that the earliest complex life known to science is the ediacarans, which look like this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/90000/images/_92999_FOSSIL_LEAF300.JPG
...clearly showing that the first creations were trees as Pastafarians claim.
Note also that the earliest hominids known to science were only about 1 meter high...
http://www.vienna-doctor.com/images/Pictures/skeletal_remains.jpg
...again confirming the Flying Spaghetti Monster story.
Finally, as we have shown there were trees and midgits, we can conclusively say there must have been mountains for them to have stood on.
So sorry Katie but unlike the laughable made up 'facts' of christian creationist, Pastafarianism can be shown to be completely consistent with scientific knowledge and therefore Pastafarianism is more obviously the true religion.
Ramen. |
katie
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 | 02:12 PM
hello. God is real. A man named Thomas Aquinas proved God is real. He said that God created a law called the natural law. If you need proof that i did not make the whole story up go to google.com and look him up. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 | 03:13 PM
And Thomas Aquinas was proved wrong. If you doubt me, Google it and find out for yourself. |
katie
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 | 03:24 PM
proved wrong by who??? i want the name and when he was proved wrong. |
Charybdis
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 | 05:41 PM
Nope, if you don't feel the need to support your claims with cites, then neither do I. :lol: |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 | 03:38 AM
Before katie goes away thinking she has stumped us...
Thomas Aquinas said that there existed a 'natural law', that is things that were inherently just and right, and that as this 'justness' is inherent in nature, it must have been put there by God.
1) That there is 'natural law' is an unproven assertion. We might perceive something as being naturally right and fair, but then that would make natural law a product of our perception. As 'just', 'right', 'fair', etc. are explicitly subjective assessments, there is no objective evidence of them being a condition of nature.
2) The concept of natural law is inherently teleological; it says that order implies an orderer. This is a second unproven assumption, Aquinas' natural law is just a variant of the argument "look how pretty flowers are, there must be a god", or "look how complex the eye is, there must be a god".
Basically, Aquinas is using "argument from ignorance" (I can't think of another cause for X but God, therefore God) and "argument from incredulity" (I can't imagine there is another cause for X but God, therefore God).
3) Even if accepted, the argument would not prove God, merely the existence of an orderer. Voltaire observed "From this argument, I cannot conclude anything more than it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has prepared and shaped matter with dexterity; I cannot conclude from this argument alone that this being has made the matter out of nothing or that he is infinite in any sense [i.e. that he is God]".
4) It is special pleading. The supposed existence of natural law and justice implies design, the design implies a designer. Where did the designer come from? Doesn't his complexity require a designer? If yes, we have infinite regress, GOG and MAGOG. If no, we have an exception, hence design does not imply a designer.
5) Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Aquinas concluded that there were things that were naturally, implicitly right and lawful, but what most people would agree those things are has changed over time. E.g. is slavery against natural law? It's certainly practised in the bible, so I guess not. What about tying someone up and eating them alive? Spiders and Ichneumonidae do it all the time. Cheating, rape, adultery, homosexuality? They all occur in nature, are all 'natural', so what reason is there to describe them as 'unlawful' other than a personal abhorrence? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 | 03:45 AM
If there is a 'natural law', it is that heritable behaviours and characteristics that improve the bearers' reproductive success will tend to become more common in successive generations of a population, while those behaviours or characteristics that reduce it will become less common.
I.e. evolution by natural selection. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 | 05:37 AM
David B.,
What are you trying to do, plant the first seed of doubt in Katie's mind? You could do irreparable damage to her belief system with your inconvenient logic. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 | 08:41 AM
I wouldn't worry too much Cap, I'm sure Katie has a well developed 'logic filter' which will kick in the instant anything that disagrees with her beliefs rears its ugly head. I'll bet her eyes are already glazing over and she has completely forgotten everything David said that contradicts her. |
Carter
|
Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 | 08:16 PM
.....I'm starting to think that David B. is God.
Not to take anything away from Chary or the Cap'n. But David B. always ends with great dialogue.
I wish I could say the same for myself.
Sorry I don't have any input other than the above statement...
later! |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 | 04:22 PM
Great. Now just prove I exist and you've won yourself a million dollars!
😉 |
Carter
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 | 05:57 PM
hmmm.... would you like to take a picture with me while you hold a sign that says "David B.".
The last post on the last page that you made was my argument to someone. I thought it was funny to read that after I said it earlier that week.
later! |
Fonzie
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 | 10:54 PM
Hang on a minute you guys! Don't you get it! God must exist because the Bible says he does, and God WROTE the Bible!! He wouldn't tell FIBS!
Has anyone else noticed the appalling quality of the arguments made by the theists here? Are there any statistics for the average IQ of a theist? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 | 09:26 AM
Theists are just as intelligent as atheists and agnostics. It's just that only the less intelligent theists tend to argue about it over the internet.
The smarter theists know they'll be out-argued and don't bother in the first place. 😉 |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 | 09:32 AM
Mind you, the smarter a theist is, the more capable he'll be at deceiving himself. So it all evens out in the end.
😛 |
|
Page 20 of 24 pages ‹ First < 18 19 20 21 22 > Last › |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
