Search results

Would a rational argument present itself as a sham question set up to be easily refuted thereby suggesting something else is true? God obviously is nothing but a strawman.

You must be kidding right? Your argument "does not require anyone to prove a negative".!?? No way .Your rationality can't be that far gone, surely!? sheesh. Just in case , see if this might help ... "They simply can not prove there is no creator.? " Yes I can jem. I can prove to...

Sorry jem, it is not a fact. Without the information an atheist has no reason to believe there is a God. That is an unambiguous -no reason to believe - point of view, not a requirement for belief or faith. Its a requirement for knowledge.

It's not with science or atheists - I think you’ll find the problem you say others are having is actually your own... There is nothing basically intellectually respectable, rational, logical in your argument above.

Genesis 19:32-36 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose...

As usual, you're already all over the place. You missed the point I was making. Can you even explain what you think the point was I was making? in a couple of direct sentences of explanation without references to "Big Bangs" or how you think not being able to prove the un-provable is...

You kinda missed the point I was making jem but then, you always have. Clue.... SWhiting (either intentionally or coincidentally) didn't. :)

Yes but since when did clever or intelligent people not do silly things? Like for instance talking to a giant invisible sky daddy . Or going to a building to communally act out various forms of strange weird and quite frankly- perverse practices, which if done in any other place, would...

Believing Bible stories as if they were true, or fictional characters in it like Jesus or Lazarus as if they were actual, might allow one the somewhat doubtful ability to lose in trading, but believe they have won.

nah...not a waste of time ... but voting & praying is. :)

The making of such a characteristically boring expression of insincerity as that by virtue of political conservative extremism, is illuminating only as far as it depicts its sheepish inclinations.

ok, so you prove the point. You’ve done what Obama and then rather unimaginatively - Prager did . Now just some of your bs -v- the politicians and the journalist’s bs. If you can't see it then here's a reason why... One woman said "I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together"...

If people like Dennis Prager want to make valid points against Obama, it might be a little more intelligent of them not to make the same mistakes as Obama. The Berlin wall did not come down because 'America stood strong'. That is as pointless untrue and meaningless a statement he says Obama...

Unless of course too much religious affiliation itself is to do with exhibiting an illogical mental depravity. Sane perhaps, up to the point where they happen to be religious, could be.

I agree. My opinion is… It’s hard to see the rationale for swearing at readers and potential customers. As a means to attract attention, its value would be extremely limited. Who exactly does it appeal to? The merely inquisitive, who on reaching the product eventually view it...

You might abstain, abstention is a vote. Carries a number of advantages. One being, you will honestly be able to say "I didn't vote for this crook this time". What's the worst that can happen? One of 2 crap runners will get elected anyway, But on low numbers, the buggers feel vulnerable...

Embarrassingly, isn't it the case that America gained its independence from Britain not England... England is part of Britain isn't it?... like Wales and Scotland and N.Ireland are. The British government - therefore Britain - granted (well it f*kin had to) independence didn't it?? How...

Thing is Gringinho, my point being, you can't reduce existence to anything else. But you do have nothingness dependant on existence, in that way it is by necessity reduced to existence. I would agree with you, the future does not have existence in my opinion either, but the concept of future...

Again with respect Gringinho I am doing no such thing. I agree, I declare existence as irreducible, but it is surely obvious by now that I do not propose there can be any lack of existence, let alone that that state would be a knowledge of "nothingness". If that's what Existensialists...

ah but Jimmy Cliff said it even better in his song , " Let Your Yeah Be Yeah and your No be No.."