What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[overlord fombax]

^ Too dumb to be a Poe?

[Napoléon]

He's certainly not too dumb to be religious.

[The realest]

That's a great one. That can never be proven. Just ask Richard Dawkins "Why there ALMOST certainly is no God."

You do know that guy was a christian right?

Um,yeah... I't was suppose to be a sarcastic statement intended for you atheists. I knew you athiests would come up with some lousy excuse of how God's existence could never be proven. Besides, it was Dawkins your most influential athiest who by his own words implied that he was a agnostic by stating " Why there ALMOST certainly is no God." If your god Dawkins agreed that science cannot disprove the existence of God why can't you? Do you claim to know more than Dawkins?

[Jackalope]

Nice strawman.

By the way, you need to enable Private Messages in your profile and contact a staff member (such as myself) and explain why you have created at least 3 accounts, at the risk of getting all of them banned.

I'd have handled this notice discreetly in PM, but as you have PM's disabled, you left little choice.

[Kousbroek]

You do know that guy was a christian right?

Um,yeah... I't was suppose to be a sarcastic statement intended for you atheists. I knew you athiests would come up with some lousy excuse of how God's existence could never be proven. Besides, it was Dawkins your most influential athiest who by his own words implied that he was a agnostic by stating " Why there ALMOST certainly is no God." If your god Dawkins agreed that science cannot disprove the existence of God why can't you? Do you claim to know more than Dawkins?

That is professor Dawkins you neanderthal ... and he always made clear that to keep his integrity as a scientist he is forced to call himself an agnostic and that for him personally the difference between being agnostic or atheist is almost irrelevant.

[The realest]

That's a great one. That can never be proven. Just ask Richard Dawkins "Why there ALMOST certainly is no God."

Some atheists feel the need to append "almost" to statements of otherwise categorical rejection of God because theists seize upon categorical rejection with foaming mouths screaming "PROVE HE DOESN'T EXIST".

Adding that touch of agnosticism satisfies intellectual honesty if your standard of such is complete precision, but I tend to take a practical approach to the question. No theist can prove God exists, so I do not see why I should humor them by pretending there is any realistic chance that their wishful thinking is accurate in any regard.

When the only defense you have is to appeal to infinitesimal odds, you don't have a position worth defending.

I don't have a position worth defending? Here's a defending answer: Nothing never creates something. Just look around you, and everything thing you see was created by something. Can you disprove this? We both know the answer.

[Kousbroek]

I don't have a position worth defending? Here's a defending answer: Nothing never creates something.

You don't know shit from shinola .....

I hope you can read 'Einstein' ...

[Ryantology]

I don't have a position worth defending? Here's a defending answer: Nothing never creates something. Just look around you, and everything thing you see was created by something. Can you disprove this? We both know the answer.

You defended an appeal to infinitesimal odds by appealing to even more infinitesimal odds, as now you have to prove the existence of a creator and you have to prove that this creator created what we see.

Good luck!

[Minimalist]

I can't prove a negative, can I? I can't prove that devils can't rise the dead, thus the onus is on you to provide some evidence that they can.

First, you would have to show that devils - or gods - exist. You guys always want to skip Step #1.

[Napoléon]

at the risk of getting all of them banned.

I thought having multiple accounts was a straight ban?