Quote:Let's begin with the basics:
Quantum physics has a very old ancient name and that name is kabballah
And I immediately stopped giving a shit.
Proof of creation no atheist can debunk (100% bulletproof)
|
Quote:Let's begin with the basics: And I immediately stopped giving a shit. (May 24, 2014 at 11:32 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:Quote:Let's begin with the basics: Haha, Now that's some funny shit right there. What's even funnier is he said 'the basics'. Haha. Shit, someone get me what he's smoking. Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.
Well I for one, would like to hear this. I've got a family member who has claimed something called the Sacred flower is his basis of his Christian belief.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_sage1.htm
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite. Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment. Quote:Some people deserve hell. I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
You're argument is stupid.
You shouldn't post bullshit claiming it can't be answered. Debunked. Apparently I used armour piercing bullets. Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni: "You did WHAT? With WHO? WHERE???" Proof of creation no atheist can debunk (100% bulletproof)
May 27, 2014 at 10:00 pm
(This post was last modified: May 27, 2014 at 10:01 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
(May 27, 2014 at 8:32 pm)Luckie Wrote: Well I for one, would like to hear this. I've got a family member who has claimed something called the Sacred flower is his basis of his Christian belief. I wish I could find a shorter video than the one I posted. It debunks all of this sort of thing, and the Golden Ratio, Fibonacci sequence assertions in the OP. (May 27, 2014 at 8:32 pm)Luckie Wrote: Well I for one, would like to hear this. I've got a family member who has claimed something called the Sacred flower is his basis of his Christian belief. This is definitely a case of someone searching for evidence of something they are already convinced in my opinion. You see even if you could call this evidence of a god, it would evidence for a far different god then the one found in christian mythology. This would be evidence of a god that subtle and whats us to learn, not a god that comes down to mountain top and says follow these rules or I will kill you. In all honesty I have a much easier time believing in such a god that is subtle and far thinking as opposed to the ill tempered and spoiled child that Christians are eager to praise.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Humans are pattern seekers..... get it? For more, you might like this website. It deals with why people spew idiocy of this kind. http://youarenotsosmart.com/
Very entertaining. This person must be kidding! Probably a spoof on us all! Anyway, not to far from the truth about how 'believers' think. Any fantastical coincidence is good for them to 'strengthen their faith'.
Non sequitur, confirmation bias, category error ... this list could get long.
The original post reads like esoteric gibberish to me. If you have a limited grasp of mathematics - which many do - you can't even begin to understand the premise of this argument let alone begin to construct a counterargument. Therefore, claiming it is bulletproof is intellectually dishonest. It'd be more accurate to say it's extremely difficult to understand.
By the way: I can provide an irrefutable argument that Elvis Presley is my regular hairdresser. However, I am only able to write it out in Scottish Gaelic... Quote:Lastly, tea — unless one is drinking it in the Russian style — should be drunk without sugar. I know very well that I am in a minority here. But still, how can you call yourself a true tealover if you destroy the flavour of your tea by putting sugar in it? It would be equally reasonable to put in pepper or salt. Tea is meant to be bitter, just as beer is meant to be bitter. If you sweeten it, you are no longer tasting the tea, you are merely tasting the sugar; you could make a very similar drink by dissolving sugar in plain hot water. - George Orwell |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Can a lack of evidence be considered proof? | ignoramus | 26 | 6166 |
February 1, 2017 at 11:39 am Last Post: Asmodee |
|
Can you still be an atheist if you believe in the paranormal? | Regina | 28 | 8528 |
February 14, 2015 at 1:36 am Last Post: robvalue |
|
Fundamental flaw in the creation/evolution debate | Baalzebutt | 34 | 10793 |
May 1, 2013 at 2:46 am Last Post: AtheistPilot |
|
"Creation Science", "Flood Geology", etc | Justtristo | 10 | 5397 |
December 21, 2010 at 7:17 pm Last Post: Justtristo |