RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
November 22, 2021 at 5:33 pm
(This post was last modified: November 22, 2021 at 5:36 pm by The Architect Of Fate.)
(November 22, 2021 at 5:14 pm)Jehanne Wrote:His response is essentially denial and rationalizations(November 22, 2021 at 5:08 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe.
Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.
God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.
I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how everyone here doesn't understand a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the need of a creator. How stupid.
Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that .
Yeah, I posted this before in this thread and you never replied to it, but, most scientists are atheistic:
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
As are most philosophers:
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
But, you know more than anyone else, apparently?
And he thinks he's defeating Poly. That's adorable.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM