Search results

harsh but true haha

the difference between you and everyone else on this site is that everyone else goes further than a predictable, run-of-the-mill one line piece of crap and actually provides a new thought and contributes to discussion. get out troll

you adressed something, then talked about something else, then gave the quote for the first thing

if someone killed my entire family. i would probably hate english still more than that person

combination of 1 and 3

hmm well seeing as we are just posting blanket rebuttals from sources not of our own. i recommend people read this. its a debate between Dr Bahnsen (thiest) and Dr Stein (non-theist) about the existence of god. all of the rebuttals put forth to my argument are addressed...

sigh, you have misinterpreted me if you think i claim to be better than you. i don't suggest your mind is not open. you clearly have considered it to come to such conclusions. also i say that it is not some superior comprehension that allows me to have faith. god is the one that shows himself to...

what argument do you want. a lab test with a vial containing essence of god? come down of your high horse you seem to like this term. you never seem to back it up. just your opinion really

i'm actually in the library at school. and schools finised. so i'm leaving

dont patronise me. of course i know of pascal's wager. [chritianity has positive and negative implications] (from Mark 16) 14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after...

the only argument i need to use is the argument i am trying to avoid, because people like you hide behind their claim to intelligence and logic refusing to believe that their crystal clear perceptions could actually be incorrect. that is that is that you should have faith

such wit. i suggest that you hide behind the flawed defence that god's existence cannot be 'scientifically' proven. even agnostic scientists who conclude that god cannot be proven also accept that there is a possibility of god existing. how can you say that all the christian people who have...

do i have the burden of proof? i know god is real. your the one who will have to face the implications of not believing if it is. its your eternity

i dont accept claims like that.

but your argument is flawed unless you have some sort of ability to prove that god did not perform miracles. unless you can prove that, then they are not of equal validity in practical terms

i spose thats true in a way. i sometimes wonder if that would be the case. but i also suppose that the only real fulfillment can come from god. i think that even if i was of another religion, i wouldnt be completely fulfilled and probably would fall away from that religion. i know its easy to...

no, the limitation of a right that comes with defining it won't be good for society. if it ain't broke don't fix it

i spose the validity comes from actually finding that god exists. you can say the spaghetti monster exists, but i spose it has less validity because it can't be found to exist really. i spose the claim itself is in theory the same validity. to josep, i don't believe in religion for the sake of...

yeah. dani rusty's sister has one and it struggles to get up the hills on president avenue