God Exists

[Succubus#2]

I think because world is so tragic and depressin that people often embrace nightmare scenarios of afterlife torture and other magical stuff just to keep on leaving and dont kill themselves.

If it weren't for religion then perhaps the world would be rather less tragic and depressing.

[onlinebiker]

---

Jesus is reputed to have said that he is a shepherd and his followers are his flock - and you insult us by calling our group a herd?


You got a lotta self-hate going there Jebusboy....


I suggest you find a different hobby.

I never said it was an insult. I suggest you read more books to improve your reading comprehension, Mr. pseudo-intellectual.

Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

[Abaddon_ire]

Okay, if that's what you believe Wink

(and it's herds not herd's by the way )

No, I'm pretty sure it's herd's mentality. In other words, the mentality of your herd (a group of pseudo-intellectual atheists). Your herd's mentality. If I were speaking more generally then it'd be herd mentality.

I'm not sure why a guy who doesn't know how to spell courtesy or how periods, commas, and question marks work is suddenly critiquing grammar and typos, but it's hilarious. Are you trolling?

I find it amusing that instead of presenting any evidence at all, you quibble about grammar.

Would that be because you have no evidence? Any chance that is true?

Of course it isn't true. You are quibbling grammar because you know for a fact that you have no evidence, none, nada, rien du tout, fuck all.

If you had any you would have ponied it up by now, but you have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for a god, any god, you would have offered it by now. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for your particular god, You would have offered it already. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had demonstrated that your particular flavour of god was real, would I accept it. Sure, if you had solid evidence. But you have none.

And even then, if I accepted and was convinced that your god was real, I would consider it my moral duty and imperative to kill/destroy the immoral bastard by any means.

You and your imaginary sky fairy can go take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No, I'm pretty sure it's herd's mentality. In other words, the mentality of your herd (a group of pseudo-intellectual atheists). Your herd's mentality. If I were speaking more generally then it'd be herd mentality.

I'm not sure why a guy who doesn't know how to spell courtesy or how periods, commas, and question marks work is suddenly critiquing grammar and typos, but it's hilarious. Are you trolling?

I find it amusing that instead of presenting any evidence at all, you quibble about grammar.

Would that be because you have no evidence? Any chance that is true?

Of course it isn't true. You are quibbling grammar because you know for a fact that you have no evidence, none, nada, rien du tout, fuck all.

If you had any you would have ponied it up by now, but you have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for a god, any god, you would have offered it by now. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had any actual evidence for your particular god, You would have offered it already. You have not.

If, and that is an enormous if, you had demonstrated that your particular flavour of god was real, would I accept it. Sure, if you had solid evidence. But you have none.

And even then, if I accepted and was convinced that your god was real, I would consider it my moral duty and imperative to kill/destroy the immoral bastard by any means.  

You and your imaginary sky fairy can go take an unlikely anatomical excursion.

A Craig Bot calling us a herd lolololololollol

[Abaddon_ire]

---

I never said it was an insult. I suggest you read more books to improve your reading comprehension, Mr. pseudo-intellectual.

Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

This is getting a tad "meta".

William Lane Craig is a christian apologist.

BustedTailight is thus an apologist for an apologist.

It's turtles all the way down. 

Good old infinite regress, ya gotta love it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Really?

So - you are a narcissistic bloody cunt who is more full of shit than a Tiajuana outhouse on fish taco Friday -

But I never said that it was an insult.....


Read that you nozzle.

This is getting a tad "meta".

William Lane Craig is a christian apologist.

BustedTailight is thus an apologist for an apologist.

It's turtles all the way down. 

Good old infinite regress, ya gotta love it.

And now you know why i don't want to debate him . If i wanted to hear Billy's lame ass apologetics why would i listen to some puppet repeating them rather then go to the man himself ? It's not like he's bringing anything unique .

[Pat Mustard]

Have you any evidence for your assertion?

What do you mean? I'm describing a being that may or may not exist. I then go on to argue that this being must exist because if it doesn't, then we're left with two logically incoherent explanations for the origin of all things.

Oh, dear the "everything must have a creator" assertion.

I never claimed that.

On the first part, evidence go get it. Now.  Otherwise I'm just going to dismiss your assertions as unevidenced and not worthy of contemplation.

On the second part, oh yes you did. The paragraph I quoted and stated was "everything must have a creator" was you claiming exactly that, except for in an incredibly incoherent and idiotic way.

---

You better go tell Roger Penrose.

Tell him what? That you're an idiot, I don't think he'd care.

---

Because we're not talking about atheism, we're talking about the beginning of the universe, especially your not even wrong version of it.

I was talking about atheism. It's in my original post. Go check it out.

No you were talking about the beginning of the universe, and then wrongly attributed a hypothesis about the beginning of the unviverse as a core belief of atheism when it's nothing of the sort.

I'm an atheist and I've no idea how the universe started, mainly because I'm not well enough educated to understand either the evidence or the conclusions being drawn. But I do know that your "goddidit" is not a valid answer, because your god has been disproven. You even managed to disprove him right here in this thread.

[no one]

So, we've got drick, johan, and defective, now where is that pesky forth horseman of absurdity?

[awty]

So, we've got drick, johan, and defective, now where is that pesky forth horseman of absurdity?

Oh, oh....I know the answer...

[Smaug]