Always keep an open mind
because how silly would you look if one of the religions was actually right?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
because how silly would you look if one of the religions was actually right?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
about as silly as a man who realised the three little pigs was a true story
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
That probably doesn't matter very much
if one of the religions with a hell is right.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:46, archived)
if one of the religions with a hell is right.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:46, archived)
The Bible says that God dislikes fence-sitters more than outright unbelievers,
so you're fucked either way.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:22, archived)
so you're fucked either way.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:22, archived)
I thought it safe to assume that Bou was talking about the Abrahamic God, though.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
oh him, he's the biggest cunt of the lot
the fat gay beardy fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:25, archived)
the fat gay beardy fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:25, archived)
Pfft, fartbag!
:D I've not heard that one before. It's so deliciously childish. (/OMG paedo lololol)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:26, archived)
:D I've not heard that one before. It's so deliciously childish. (/OMG paedo lololol)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:26, archived)
it's from Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian
chapter 6, God Is A Big Gay Beardy Fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
chapter 6, God Is A Big Gay Beardy Fartbag
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
OH NOES, I FELL INTO YOUR BRILLIANT LOGICAL TRAP AND NOW I BELIEVE IN JEBUS AND BOG AND ALL HIS HOLY ANGELS
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
oh come on Weatherwax!
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
I fucking love this!
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
Plus, while it's logically impossible to prove the existence of (a) supreme being(s)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
it's also logically impossible to disprove its/their existence - making theism and atheism equally irrational standpoints.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
*follows existentialism*
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
There's no proof in favour of OR against the existence of a supreme being.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
We have enough understanding of the universe to make its existence really really unlikely, though.
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)
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)
But you've created an unnecessary problem surely?
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)
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)
I'm sure last time I said that, most of the board had a go at me
although I don't think you were included in that
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
although I don't think you were included in that
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
Er, how is it impossible to prove its existence?
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)
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)
If you can't reasonably prove a theory a priori, it's a very shaky theory.
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)
( , Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)