I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2015, 04:31 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 02:45 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I agree. There's a lot of shit like that in the bible. Specifically, bullshit like that.

A lot of bullshit in science too, you know, like universes popping in to being out of nothing....inanimate matter suddeningly "coming to life"....and consciousness from unconsciousness.

All horse shit to me.

Your incredulity and ignorance do not constitute a rational argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
09-02-2015, 04:51 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
I'm just curious ... why hasn't this pissing contest gone to the Boxing Ring yet? Does no one have the balls to challenge either one officially in the Ring?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2015 05:01 PM by One Above All.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 04:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm just curious ... why hasn't this pissing contest gone to the Boxing Ring yet? Does no one have the balls to challenge either one officially in the Ring?

I issued a challenge in the very first reply I made in this thread. The OP didn't take me up on it.
Given that this is a long thread, I'd excuse you for not having read it in its entirety, if it weren't for the fact that my first reply in this thread is also the first reply to this thread.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:38 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  ...
It was absolutely ridiculous watching his explain the transition between one tenth of an eye to a quarter of an eye to half an eye to whatever!
How the hell did those skin cells that suddenly became sensible to light get connected to the brain of the animal? Nerves simply grew out of them randomly in all directions and somehow they found their way to the brain and they plugged themselves in?
...

I'm calling Poe on this one.

It's just got to be parody

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
09-02-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 05:40 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 12:55 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 12:20 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Does a snowflake require god to design each one or does it happen with natural crystalline formation?

Perhaps you can comprehend the fundamental flaw in the un-sourced .pdf that you linked.

Your counterexample is ridiculous, at best. You're going to tell me that the males and females of the same species started having sex (despite not having the sexual instinct) because it simply was one on the infinite possibilities in which the atoms forming the cells forming the tissues forming the bodies of the two animals could have possibly interacted? So, theoretically, there were an infinite minus one possibilities in which those atoms could have interacted non sexually, and one possibility in which they could have interacted sexually, is that what you're suggesting? Wow! I'm learning new stuff here by the minute! Talking about thinking!

Science, embrace it.

You get sexual reproduction even in unicellular organisms. Individual bacteria merge, exchange genetic material, and divide to produce new bacteria with different genetic makeup from either parent.

So the sex organs are just a multicellular organism's way of doing the same thing. The first multicellular organisms (like the slime molds) did sex the old-fashioned way: some of its cells would meet up with some cells of another member of its sex, fuse, and divide.

The next step after the primitive multicellular organisms is when cells begin to develop specialized functions. (This is where the old saw "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" comes in; the ancient organisms I'm talking about were similar to a human embryo where it starts to have "inside" cells and "outside" cells.) One of those specialized functions is gametes, special cells with just half of the genetic complement.

Nobody knows which organisms first developed gametes (this is all long, long before anything left fossils) but it's a relatively simple mutation that prevents polyploidy. In other words, you fuse gametes together and get one full genetic complement and you don't have to weed out duplicates or deal with an exponentially increasing genetic load.

Meiosis is such a simple mutation that some creatures had probably been producing gametes for a while before they figured out how to use them for sex. Probably one organism began producing gametes which fused with a somatic cell to reproduce. That saved its "father" a huge amount of work; it could produce twice as many offspring for the same energy. So that was selected for, and eventually everybody was producing gametes and fusing them to other gametes.

The idea of "male" and "female" organisms came even later than that, when gestation became long enough that one of the parents had to provide extra energy. One organism found that its offspring did better if it made its gametes with an extra blob of protein and sugar which the developing cells could eat. That was successful enough that it became the first female creature.

That evolutionary step probably happened more than once, in different kingdoms (plants, animals, yeasts), because having exactly two genders with one producing few slow gametes and the other producing many fast gametes is such a good idea.

Sexual organs came only long, long after that. In plants, the differing sexual organs didn't actually have to touch each other, so they evolved more or less in isolation as the wind or insects carried the gametes to meet each other.

In vertebrates, many species don't need compatible organs, either. Many fish just spray eggs into the water, and a male comes by later and sprays sperm among them. Birds have an all-purpose "cloaca", and transfer gametes in a somewhat messy fashion.

But the penis and vagina idea is good enough that it happened at least twice, once among the mammals and one among the insects. (Insect penises are unrelated to mammal penises, an example of convergent evolution.) In vertebrates, the penis is a modification of the cloaca: male instances of the species found that they could reproduce more effectively with a bulge in the cloaca to deposit sperm closer to the ovaries.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
09-02-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(08-02-2015 07:28 PM)BnW Wrote:  Define "prove". I read your posts to define "prove" as "recreate and make life from non life ". That is not what is required to "prove " abiogenesis. But, that seems to be what you want. If so, there is no point continuing. Science hasn't yet done that and if that's all you'll accept, the discussion is over.

Just demonstrate how life can come nonliving material, and/or how consciousness came come from unconsciousness.

Demonstrate how a god exists, and prove that jesus EVER existed as a historic, physical person. Here let me give you an assist since you seem to be the very definition of ineducable tyro...

First on your how does life come from nothing...

The Miller–Urey experiment (or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment concerning the experimental abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass flasks and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

Within a day, the mixture had turned pink in colour, and at the end of two weeks of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. 18% of the methane-molecules became bio-molecules. The rest turned into hydrocarbons like bitumen.

In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."

So they took some simple gases, hit it with heat and some electricity (gasp…like…lightning huh?) and voila! Life.


Now on your jesus myth...since you conveniently didn't respond to my last post filled with evidence against jesus, let me try again, maybe if I say it slower you will get it...

There exists zero evidence that a jesus of nazareth ever existed, no writings, no dwelling, no works of carpentry, nothing.

No one who EVER wrote of jesus knew him. Nope, none, and i can substantiate that at great length. try me.

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

And...

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.


No one at the time of jesus thought these magical events that occurred according to the fable called the bible thought they were noteworthy enough to write down...nope, lets wait until years later for a group of anonymous authors to gather up stories and write them under the names of mark, matthew and luke...the definition of pseudepigrapha.

The jesus story was most likely based on romulus, lets take a peek, since I like to educate creationists on their own religion, good thing i have a degree in religious studies with specialization in christianity from saint leo university, so I have the credentials to do so. Here is lesson one...

Romulus
Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

- Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

getting the picture yet?


further more, lets review why noted historians that lived in the area failed to ever mention jesus.. Consider

Philo of Alexandria

The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

You sure you want to engage me? I will drag you around the knowledge tree.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
09-02-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
and another little tidbit since I am in the giving mood...

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
09-02-2015, 08:34 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 04:56 PM)One Above All Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 04:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm just curious ... why hasn't this pissing contest gone to the Boxing Ring yet? Does no one have the balls to challenge either one officially in the Ring?

I issued a challenge in the very first reply I made in this thread. The OP didn't take me up on it.
Given that this is a long thread, I'd excuse you for not having read it in its entirety, if it weren't for the fact that my first reply in this thread is also the first reply to this thread.

I saw your post. What I asked was why we haven't seen any of you go to the ring and make a formal request to debate. I assume Call of the Wild is a pussy. But this thread isn't the place, and you didn't debate anyone, you asked him to prove something.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 04:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  A lot of bullshit in science too, you know, like universes popping in to being out of nothing....inanimate matter suddeningly "coming to life"....and consciousness from unconsciousness.

All horse shit to me.

Your incredulity and ignorance do not constitute a rational argument.

And there's been zero debate. Given the thread title I was at least expecting some effort. Making irrational statements is not debate. Maybe he's unclear on what debate is?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: