Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Caecilian]

You don't need a doctorate in history or science to determine whether you're an atheist or a believer. So to constantly make this point is plain dumb. You think you're so smart because you keep making posts with information you gained by googling articles or pressing your wikepedia button. But any 9 year old can do the same (see tavarish). It may fool others here (again see tavarish), but I can see right through you.

I broke my own rule of answering someone who used profanity. That's because I felt I needed to address certain points for the benefit of others. But I'm done with you. You are a jerk and a creep, and you show no intellect by resorting to profanity and insults. This is why I have mostly ignored you in the past. Don't bother in the future because you shall be ignored.

If you want to ignore me then fine.

I shall continue to counter your nonsensical 'arguments' with facts. Its important to do this because there are many people who lurk on forums like this, reading what we write and trying to make up their own minds. In this sort of argument, spectators always outnumber participants. People like tav, Paul and Min- they don't need convincing. And I've long given up any hope of getting you to look at the world rationally. Its the spectators who are important here- the ones who could be swayed in either direction.

You haven't answered any of the points that I or others have made.

For example: What exactly is it about Chile (or Peru, or Mexico, or Greece, or Sicily) that leads god to repeatedly devastate them with earthquakes?

For example: Why the Black Death? If you knew anything about history, then you'd know that the major doctrinal splits (Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin) came after the plague.

And heres another point: Why not the USSR? Why were there no major earthquakes destroying the major cities of the greatest and most ruthless anti-theist nation in history?

As far as googling and using the wiki for information-gathering- yes, of course I do a little of both, although I am fortunate to have a large personal library. You're right that you don't need an academic background to make coherent arguments. It so happens that I do have a solid academic background, and I'm sure this is a big advantage for me. Still- anyone can look at the facts and think for themselves. You choose not to.