Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Huggy Bear]

You have what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an ‘old days’ televangelist asserting that god is present, and that there is a light above a woman’s head.  You have no evidence of this alleged light above her head, and no evidence that the light in the photo is god. An assertion that it is god is not evidence that it is. You simply take Branham at his word?  Why on earth would you do that?  Tell me, Huggy; how much money have you wired to Nigerian princes over the years?

We'll it appears you didn't watch the video if full context.

Let me tell you a little about William Branham.

First of all, he's never been on television and he was passed away before I was even born.

2. He had a seventh grade education

3. Never took an offering in 30 something years of preaching

4. Worked a full time job to make ends meet (do you imagine someone like Billy Graham working a 9-5 Job?)

5. Everything he had was pretty much donated to him, even his suits were donated to him, in fact he took out an ad in the local paper apologizing for driving a Cadillac that was donated to him.

Up until now, you've heard of Billy Graham, you've heard of Oral Roberts, but you've never heard of William Branham, they were all preaching at the same time.

So what exactly was Branham's endgame? It clearly wasn't the money.

That being said you can't claim the light was fake because a picture exists of it, you can't claim the picture was fake because you have people who claimed they saw it.





Your only rebuttal to any of this is basically


You guys skipped all the way past your supposed default position of "I don't know" and went into full denial mode based only on pure speculations. Your rejection of the evidence can only be based upon on the idea that all things that exist in the universe are known, is that what you're saying?

[Nay_Sayer]

You have what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an ‘old days’ televangelist asserting that god is present, and that there is a light above a woman’s head.  You have no evidence of this alleged light above her head, and no evidence that the light in the photo is god. An assertion that it is god is not evidence that it is. You simply take Branham at his word?  Why on earth would you do that?  Tell me, Huggy; how much money have you wired to Nigerian princes over the years?

We'll it appears you didn't watch the video if full context.

Let me tell you a little about William Branham.

First of all, he's never been on television and he was passed away before I was even born.

2. He had a seventh grade education

3. Never took an offering in 30 something years of preaching

4. Worked a full time job to make ends meet (do you imagine someone like Billy Graham working a 9-5 Job?)

5. Everything he had was pretty much donated to him, even his suits were donated to him, in fact he took out an ad in the local paper apologizing for driving a Cadillac that was donated to him.

Up until now, you've heard of Billy Graham, you've heard of Oral Roberts, but you've never heard of William Branham, they were all preaching at the same time.

So what exactly was Branham's endgame? It clearly wasn't the money.

That being said you can't claim the light was fake because a picture exists of it, you can't claim the picture was fake because you have people who claimed they saw it.





Your only rebuttal to any of this is basically


You guys skipped all the way past your supposed default position of "I don't know" and went into full denial mode based only on pure speculations. Your rejection of the evidence can only be based upon on the idea that all things that exist in the universe are known, is that what you're saying?

Yes, and I know the source and you wallow in darkness.

RAmen

[GrandizerII]

You have what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an ‘old days’ televangelist asserting that god is present, and that there is a light above a woman’s head.  You have no evidence of this alleged light above her head, and no evidence that the light in the photo is god. An assertion that it is god is not evidence that it is. You simply take Branham at his word?  Why on earth would you do that?  Tell me, Huggy; how much money have you wired to Nigerian princes over the years?

We'll it appears you didn't watch the video if full context.

Let me tell you a little about William Branham.

First of all, he's never been on television and he was passed away before I was even born.

2. He had a seventh grade education

3. Never took an offering in 30 something years of preaching

4. Worked a full time job to make ends meet (do you imagine someone like Billy Graham working a 9-5 Job?)

5. Everything he had was pretty much donated to him, even his suits were donated to him, in fact he took out an ad in the local paper apologizing for driving a Cadillac that was donated to him.

Up until now, you've heard of Billy Graham, you've heard of Oral Roberts, but you've never heard of William Branham, they were all preaching at the same time.

So what exactly was Branham's endgame? It clearly wasn't the money.

That being said you can't claim the light was fake because a picture exists of it, you can't claim the picture was fake because you have people who claimed they saw it.





Your only rebuttal to any of this is basically


You guys skipped all the way past your supposed default position of "I don't know" and went into full denial mode based only on pure speculations. Your rejection of the evidence can only be based upon on the idea that all things that exist in the universe are known, is that what you're saying?

It doesn't matter what you think about Branham. I have yet to see evidence of God in any of the pictures or audio recordings you keep referring to.

[chimp3]

You have what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an ‘old days’ televangelist asserting that god is present, and that there is a light above a woman’s head.  You have no evidence of this alleged light above her head, and no evidence that the light in the photo is god. An assertion that it is god is not evidence that it is. You simply take Branham at his word?  Why on earth would you do that?  Tell me, Huggy; how much money have you wired to Nigerian princes over the years?

We'll it appears you didn't watch the video if full context.

Let me tell you a little about William Branham.

First of all, he's never been on television and he was passed away before I was even born.

2. He had a seventh grade education

3. Never took an offering in 30 something years of preaching

4. Worked a full time job to make ends meet (do you imagine someone like Billy Graham working a 9-5 Job?)

5. Everything he had was pretty much donated to him, even his suits were donated to him, in fact he took out an ad in the local paper apologizing for driving a Cadillac that was donated to him.

Up until now, you've heard of Billy Graham, you've heard of Oral Roberts, but you've never heard of William Branham, they were all preaching at the same time.

So what exactly was Branham's endgame? It clearly wasn't the money.

That being said you can't claim the light was fake because a picture exists of it, you can't claim the picture was fake because you have people who claimed they saw it.





Your only rebuttal to any of this is basically


You guys skipped all the way past your supposed default position of "I don't know" and went into full denial mode based only on pure speculations. Your rejection of the evidence can only be based upon on the idea that all things that exist in the universe are known, is that what you're saying?

I have met Marilyn Hickey. She is a money grubbing charlatan!

[Minimalist]

2. He had a seventh grade education

It shows.  But he's got you by 5 years.

[LadyForCamus]

You have what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, an ‘old days’ televangelist asserting that god is present, and that there is a light above a woman’s head.  You have no evidence of this alleged light above her head, and no evidence that the light in the photo is god. An assertion that it is god is not evidence that it is. You simply take Branham at his word?  Why on earth would you do that?  Tell me, Huggy; how much money have you wired to Nigerian princes over the years?

We'll it appears you didn't watch the video if full context.

Let me tell you a little about William Branham.

First of all, he's never been on television and he was passed away before I was even born.

2. He had a seventh grade education

3. Never took an offering in 30 something years of preaching

4. Worked a full time job to make ends meet (do you imagine someone like Billy Graham working a 9-5 Job?)

5. Everything he had was pretty much donated to him, even his suits were donated to him, in fact he took out an ad in the local paper apologizing for driving a Cadillac that was donated to him.

Up until now, you've heard of Billy Graham, you've heard of Oral Roberts, but you've never heard of William Branham, they were all preaching at the same time.

So what exactly was Branham's endgame? It clearly wasn't the money.

That being said you can't claim the light was fake because a picture exists of it, you can't claim the picture was fake because you have people who claimed they saw it.





Your only rebuttal to any of this is basically


You guys skipped all the way past your supposed default position of "I don't know" and went into full denial mode based only on pure speculations. Your rejection of the evidence can only be based upon on the idea that all things that exist in the universe are known, is that what you're saying?

I’m not sure what any of the above has to do with evidence of the light being caused by a god?

[Minimalist]

When a believer wants to believe they will believe fucking anything.

[GrandizerII]

When a believer wants to believe they will believe fucking anything.

Ain't that the truth.

[robvalue]

Well, I'll give Huggy credit for at least posting the evidence he claimed to have. How that's supposed to be evidence of anything though, I have no idea.

It's sad that he hates Odin so much, he doesn't want to believe he is real. He is so biased against me because I don't believe in his God, that he has dismissed my eye witness testimony out of hand completely. He's also dismissed my brother's, and LadyforCamus's.

Obviously, I'd sent photos of Odin if I could. I mean, Huggy would instantly dismiss them even if I did, but the fact that I can't do so proves Odin doesn't show up in photos.

What would it take for Huggy to believe? What more do I need to do?

[Amarok]

So Huggies evidence is a guys testimony. And a biography on the guy as if that relevant. Oh and a dumb meme. I can play too.