b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 4702557 (Thread)

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)
about as silly as a man who realised the three little pigs was a true story

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:19, archived)
How will you ever find out?

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:21, archived)
The eternity in Hell should be a clue.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:23, archived)
But I don't believe in hell.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, 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)
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)
Of course Christianity is the only religion out there.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:23, archived)
I thought it safe to assume that Bou was talking about the Abrahamic God, though.

(, 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)
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)
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)
How can you describe something you don't believe in?

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
have you ever read a book?

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, 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)
Bog?

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)
oh come on Weatherwax!
papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/cl_intro.htm
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
god can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut then

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:24, archived)
I fucking love this!
I must file it away for later use. Is it yours?
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:27, archived)
nope
I think I read that here some years ago
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:31, archived)
It's in the book Galapagos by Kurt Vonnegut.

(, Sun 6 Apr 2008, 18:47, 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)
*follows existentialism*
*decides everything is irrational, so there is no normal*
*Hits a squirrel with an amoeba*
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
THANKYOU

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:28, archived)
But the fact that there is no proof is proof enough.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:29, archived)
There's no proof in favour of OR against the existence of a supreme being.

(, 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)
I'd argue that Les Dennis is proof that there is no God

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:33, archived)
Pfffft, true.
And the re-appearance of the Caps Monster :(
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, 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)
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)
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)
hehe, posterior

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:31, archived)
You're confusing logic with fact.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:31, archived)
If you can't reasonably prove a theory a priori, it's a very shaky theory.

(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:32, archived)
I must be confused.
Surely you need evidence to prove a theory, and evidence is necessarily a posteriori?
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:35, archived)
But god implies sin
Innocent until proven guilty, I say. He doesn't exist until proof is found.
(, Sat 5 Apr 2008, 15:34, archived)