The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

No point in arguing. We're all doomed anyway, UNLESS;
Legend of the 13 Crystal Skulls

Though most archeologists believe that the life-sized crystal skulls we are familiar with today are 19th century fakes, there is a one popular myth that connects them with the ancient Mayan culture. The story goes that in ancient times there were 13 skulls, most of which are now lost to history. According to the story, they must be found before December 21, 2012. That day marks the end of the current Mayan calendar cycle which has lasted 5,126 years. On that date, according to the legend, the earth will be knocked off its axis, unless the thirteen skulls are brought together and aligned properly. If that is done, the paranormal power of the skulls can save the planet.

WE MUST FIND ALL OF THESE SKULLS! All hail the power of the skull.:eek:
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, that is my faith. Not denying that is my faith.

Not an assertion though....just my faith.

The preamble was:

"I am certain of Totality, and I have faith that Totality is God."

What followed was an exposition of that faith...not an assertion.

Took a while to train you, like some poor dumb mutt, but finally you went and fetched the paper...

No go along Fido, and pee on some hydrant...or have some bizarre fantasy of an alien female being orgasmic...

You have the con, to continue jerking off as you wish...
More...

Seriously now. You think a preamble trumps your poor attempt at proof?

Sure, it's your faith. Your faith in your assertions just like any other theist.

An atheist ask what of theists? Proof of their faith?

No, proof of their assertions for which they have placed their faith.

You failed to prove your assertion that totality is God. You clearly and emphatically asserted that totality is God and tried to prove it with more assertions. That's called a fallacy.

Just like when a Christian who subscribes to young Earth creationism tries to assert that the Earth is ~6000 years old. They fail their proof and use a bunch of assertions from the bible based on their interpretations and also pseudo science which curve fits evidence.

Sure they believe it. But once they try to prove it, the Atheist has something to work with. Their assertions. And the theist in this case always fail to prove their assertions.

Recall what I said to Jem:

"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"

Game over.
 
Fido now thinks he decides when it is:

"Game over."

Now worries, longshot the poodle has got your back...

Quote from PatternRec:

Seriously now. You think a preamble trumps your poor attempt at proof?

Sure, it's your faith. Your faith in your assertions just like any other theist.

An atheist ask what of theists? Proof of their faith?

No, proof of their assertions for which they have placed their faith.

You failed to prove your assertion that totality is God. You clearly and emphatically asserted that totality is God and tried to prove it with more assertions. That's called a fallacy.

Just like when a Christian who subscribes to young Earth creationism tries to assert that the Earth is ~6000 years old. They fail their proof and use a bunch of assertions from the bible based on their interpretations and also pseudo science which curve fits evidence.

Sure they believe it. But once they try to prove it, the Atheist has something to work with. Their assertions. And the theist in this case always fail to prove their assertions.

Recall what I said to Jem:

"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"

Game over.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=assert

Roll over Fido...fetch...play dead...

LOL!!!
More...

What are you, fucking 5?

When you add "ion" to assert, on the page you linked to which points to "assert," to look up the word "assertion," it spits out the following:

...a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)...

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/per...dNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=0000

Dumbass.

You can go here too:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion

or here (to really drive the point home):

http://home.earthlink.net/~mylnir/debate/logic.me.html
 
Quote from PatternRec:

Seriously now. You think a preamble trumps your poor attempt at proof?

Sure, it's your faith. Your faith in your assertions just like any other theist.

An atheist ask what of theists? Proof of their faith?

No, proof of their assertions for which they have placed their faith.

You failed to prove your assertion that totality is God. You clearly and emphatically asserted that totality is God and tried to prove it with more assertions. That's called a fallacy.

Just like when a Christian who subscribes to young Earth creationism tries to assert that the Earth is ~6000 years old. They fail their proof and use a bunch of assertions from the bible based on their interpretations and also pseudo science which curve fits evidence.

Sure they believe it. But once they try to prove it, the Atheist has something to work with. Their assertions. And the theist in this case always fail to prove their assertions.

Recall what I said to Jem:

"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"

Game over.
More...

You are quoting yourself vs. me for what reason. You think I granted your point?

No you may not assume. Can we assume that since et atheists can't prove the assertion that God does not exist that it is safe to assume that God does not does not exist. (or that God exists?)


this is similar to logic involved with the null hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top