![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
But i shall say i am more agnostic.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:17, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
because how silly would you look if one of the religions was actually right?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
if one of the religions with a hell is right.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:46, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
so you're fucked either way.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:22, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
the fat gay beardy fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:25, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
:D I've not heard that one before. It's so deliciously childish. (/OMG paedo lololol)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:26, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
chapter 6, God Is A Big Gay Beardy Fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
True, we can't prove it's not out there, remaining hidden. But then what's the difference, for practical purposes, between no god and a god that never does anything and which we never detect?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
If there's no proof either way, why even debate the concept?
I JUST DON'T KNOW ANYMORE!
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
although I don't think you were included in that
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
All they need to do is stump up some evidence. It's impossible with a priori logic, yes, but not with a posteriori. There currently isn't any evidence we've found to prove the existence of a supreme being, but that doesn't mean that there cannot be any.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
![This is a normal post](/images/board_posticon.gif)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)