There's no such thing as god

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim that "god is possible" is a guess.
Actually it's not. It's like an on-off switch. You can't falsify it, so it may be possible.
-Skeptic- wrote:
A scientific hypothesis requires some actual evidence.
What a coincidence, because that's exaclty what you've failed to provide for over a year
And I have also explicitly stated that I had one, or that there ever was. So you've made no point here.

At all.
-Skeptic- wrote:
instead choosing to lie about lizards
I never once lied about that. You know that. I even provided you the linky to your own post. I even gave you the opportunity to either retract or rationally explain your statement.

Multiple times.

In front of everyone else reading the thread.

You refused.

I now give you the opportunity again.

Me, I think it'll be like asking a fundie what the "scientific theory" of ID is. 7 years I've been asking, no joy.

So I must say, since you're a known and confirmed liar the irony here is astounding.

So I'm still waiting for that apology, Skips.
-Skeptic- wrote:
and egypy
I didn't involve myself with that part since I was away for at least a week so didn't get to see the whole thing. Again, I've told you this before. So again, I have not lied and again you've made no point. Don't blame me for stuff that has nothing to do with me.
-Skeptic- wrote:
instead of answering the one damning question that disproves your guess. Where the flying f*ck is the evidence behind your claim?
The evidence is in your posts. I've repeatedly asked you to describe the scientific test you performed to falsify the claim and you have not done so. If it's not been demonstrated as unequivocally false then it's still possible, however unlikely, that it may still exist. Or it may not.

Of course all this has been explained to you many many many times over, and you've yet to address it. No, according to the great Skippy all-powerful all-knowing, if there is no evidence then it is "impossible", period. Scientific method and concepts of falsifiability be damned. So what else can you do but ignore inconvenient arguments?

Just like all fundies.

Just like Cowboy.

Just like Marksman.

Just like KJV.

Just like Buck Crick.

Just like GimmeLiberty.

Aaaaaand just like Skippy the "Skeptic".
-Skeptic- wrote:
Thank you and f*ck off.
I shall take your request under consideration.

Have a nice day!

:-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Ad hom attacks the concession speech of one who knows they have lost.
Really? Which ones and why?
Givemeliberty wrote:
I accept your defeat.
You are dismissed.
I cannot give you my surrender until you address my arguments directly in a coherent rational manner, and successfully showing why I'm wrong.

By the way, you still think I'm a closet creationist?

BWAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Which ones and why?
<quoted text>
I cannot give you my surrender until you address my arguments directly in a coherent rational manner, and successfully showing why I'm wrong.
By the way, you still think I'm a closet creationist?
BWAAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Actually you have made a positive claim -- the claim that "the existence of a god is possible".

Yet you refuse to define the properties of this entity which you would label a "god" that you say could possibly exist. You instead go off on some vague handwaving about multiverses, knowing full well that location is not a property which in and of itself would define any entity as a "god".

So, if YOU claim that an entity could possibly exist that YOU would consider had all the properties such that the label "god" would be appropriate, then asking what those properties would be is an entirely appropriate question.

If you don't know what those properties would be, then how can you insist that I accept your claim that gods are possible?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's not. It's like an on-off switch. You can't falsify it, so it may be possible.
...
Are you really asking someone to prove a negative. And you say you're logical. That's funny there.

Let's make this exceedingly easy....

How about we divide everything into 2 categories -- things that can possible exist, and things that cannot.

At least some of the properties that are normally considered for an entity one would label "god" belong in the 'cannot exist' category -- omnipotence, omniscience and free will, omnibenevolence and gratuitous evil, existing outside of time, etc.

By what rationale other than personal desire do you insist that "god" belongs in the "can exist" category?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Actually you have made a positive claim -- the claim that "the existence of a god is possible".
No, I'm countering Skippy's *positive* claim that it was "impossible", despite the fact he did no scientific test at all whatsoever to falsify it. If it's not been falsified, then it may still be possible. However "possible" is *not* a positive assertion as it is not an all encompassing position (like "impossible" is) and accepts that just because something may be possible, does not mean that it is an actuality.

You say you don't wanna bring Skippy into it, but it's too late now. If you don't think it's possible then you therefore have taken Skip's position and think it's impossible. Your position is now EXACTLY the same as his. I've already pointed out why his position is incorrect according to the scientific method.
Hedonist wrote:
Yet you refuse to define the properties of this entity which you would label a "god" that you say could possibly exist.
That's because there is no falsifiable definition. I have not been secretive about this in any way. Quite the opposite in fact.
Hedonist wrote:
You instead go off on some vague handwaving about multiverses, knowing full well that location is not a property which in and of itself would define any entity as a "god".
Location of both God and the multiverse is utterly irrelevant to my point. And that point is that both concepts, regardless of "where" they are located are without evidence and non-falsifiable.
Hedonist wrote:
So, if YOU claim that an entity could possibly exist that YOU would consider had all the properties such that the label "god" would be appropriate, then asking what those properties would be is an entirely appropriate question.
If you don't know what those properties would be, then how can you insist that I accept your claim that gods are possible?
Because it's not a falsifiable concept. If it was a falsifiable concept then we could test it, and if it is incorrect/does not exist, then it can be falsified. At that point it may be reasonable to claim it is impossible - but still with the caveat that later evidence MAY still in the future falsify that, because science is ALWAYS tentative no matter how strong the evidence.

Because falsifiability is ESSENTIAL to the scientific method. In exactly the same way we can say a pre-Cambrian rabbit - BASED ON CURRENT EVIDENCE - is "impossible". However science is still open to the possibility that it may be found, hence making it, and evolution, falsifiable, and therefore scientific.

If God is impossible, then it is falsifiable and been falsified. I therefore would like to ask what scientific experiment you performed that falsified it. If it is not impossible then the ONLY other alternative is that it IS possible. While that may get some atheist's theological panties in a bunch it doesn't bother me none. I contend that the concept is non-falsifiable with neither any evidence for or against it, therefore rendering it non-predictive, non-testable, non-falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. And can therefore be thrown into the non-falsifiable concepts box, along with ghosts, the FSM, and Last Thursdayism.

Skip's claim is an absolute, non-falsifiable, and non-testable. If you do not accept it's possible then you are taking his position. His ego will be gratified for your support.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm countering Skippy's *positive* claim that it was "impossible", despite the fact he did no scientific test at all whatsoever to falsify it. If it's not been falsified, then it may still be possible. However "possible" is *not* a positive assertion as it is not an all encompassing position (like "impossible" is) and accepts that just because something may be possible, does not mean that it is an actuality.
You say you don't wanna bring Skippy into it, but it's too late now. If you don't think it's possible then you therefore have taken Skip's position and think it's impossible. Your position is now EXACTLY the same as his. I've already pointed out why his position is incorrect according to the scientific method.
<quoted text>
That's because there is no falsifiable definition. I have not been secretive about this in any way. Quite the opposite in fact.
<quoted text>
Location of both God and the multiverse is utterly irrelevant to my point. And that point is that both concepts, regardless of "where" they are located are without evidence and non-falsifiable.
<quoted text>
Because it's not a falsifiable concept. If it was a falsifiable concept then we could test it, and if it is incorrect/does not exist, then it can be falsified. At that point it may be reasonable to claim it is impossible - but still with the caveat that later evidence MAY still in the future falsify that, because science is ALWAYS tentative no matter how strong the evidence.
Because falsifiability is ESSENTIAL to the scientific method. In exactly the same way we can say a pre-Cambrian rabbit - BASED ON CURRENT EVIDENCE - is "impossible". However science is still open to the possibility that it may be found, hence making it, and evolution, falsifiable, and therefore scientific.
If God is impossible, then it is falsifiable and been falsified. I therefore would like to ask what scientific experiment you performed that falsified it. If it is not impossible then the ONLY other alternative is that it IS possible. While that may get some atheist's theological panties in a bunch it doesn't bother me none. I contend that the concept is non-falsifiable with neither any evidence for or against it, therefore rendering it non-predictive, non-testable, non-falsifiable, and therefore not scientific. And can therefore be thrown into the non-falsifiable concepts box, along with ghosts, the FSM, and Last Thursdayism.
Skip's claim is an absolute, non-falsifiable, and non-testable. If you do not accept it's possible then you are taking his position. His ego will be gratified for your support.
Why do I have to accept "it's possible" when you won't define what you mean by "it" clear enough to make such a determination?

Anyway, I already tried to simplify it for you --

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

I'm not interested in some esoteric "scientific measure". I'm interested in you, the person with the screen name of "The Dude". YOU claim to know that there are a given set of properties which could possible exist for an entity that YOU personally would be willing to label "god". What are those properties that lead you to such a assertion?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Are you really asking someone to prove a negative. And you say you're logical. That's funny there.
Don't blame ME. HE'S the one who said he HAD.(shrug)
Hedonist wrote:
Let's make this exceedingly easy....
How about we divide everything into 2 categories -- things that can possible exist, and things that cannot.
At least some of the properties that are normally considered for an entity one would label "god" belong in the 'cannot exist' category -- omnipotence, omniscience and free will,
Yes, I agree omnipotence, omniscience are not compatible with *us* having free will. But for all we know free will could all be an illusion. Heck, even if there is no God free will could still be an illusion.
Hedonist wrote:
omnibenevolence and gratuitous evil,
Groovy.
Hedonist wrote:
existing outside of time, etc.
I take issue here, as existing beyond our universe by necessity means existing outside spacetime as we know it, that spacetime being our current universal expansion. If our universe is eternally preceded and succeeded by others, scientists already think that their physics could work completely differently to ours, unless there are some kind of physical forces at work that make all universes have exactly the same kind of physics. If there is a multiverse, do those other universes experience time at the same rate? Or different? Do they exist within a larger universe where time still runs around them concurrently or at a different rate again? Does linear time even make sense outside of a universal expansion phase?

Feck knows, my head's just battered even contemplating it. I'll just have a beer instead.
Hedonist wrote:
By what rationale other than personal desire do you insist that "god" belongs in the "can exist" category?
My desire is irrelevant. I personally don't much care whether it can or can't. The problem is all those things you're trying to ascribe to the God concept are all concepts commonly rooted in man-made religions. If such a thing exists, there is no reason whatsoever to presume it adheres or must adheres to those concepts, and every reason to presume it doesn't have to.

There is nothing more alien than an entity capable of creating universes.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Location of both God and ....
BTW, according to your best bud Nuggies, your use of the uppercase here would peg you as a Bible-thumping creationist, along with Polymath and me. But I bet you'll get a pass on this.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm countering Skippy's *positive* claim that it was "impossible", despite the fact he did no scientific test at all whatsoever to falsify it....
You say you don't wanna bring Skippy into it, but it's too late now. If you don't think it's possible then you therefore have taken Skip's position and think it's impossible. Your position is now EXACTLY the same as his. I've already pointed out why his position is incorrect according to the scientific method.
.... If you do not accept it's possible then you are taking his position. His ego will be gratified for your support.
Wow, it's all just black-and-white to you. Well, you're wrong, you're so wrong it's pathetic.

I do NOT accepts what I understand of Skeptic's position, if I in fact understand it correctly. I believe that he has claimed that science proves that god is impossible. That is NOT my claim.

MY CLAIM is that the concept "god" has never been defined in clear enough terms to make any determination of possibility.

Which is why your claim that such a determination is possible intrigues me so. From my perspective, you have indeed made a positive claim. And I am still waiting on your proof.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I have to accept "it's possible" when you won't define what you mean by "it" clear enough to make such a determination?
You don't have to accept it's possible. You are free to choose Skip's position if you wish. No skin off my nose either way.
Hedonist wrote:
Anyway, I already tried to simplify it for you --
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
Time is a relevant factor in our particular universal expansion phase.

;-p
Hedonist wrote:
I'm not interested in some esoteric "scientific measure". I'm interested in you, the person with the screen name of "The Dude".
Ah, then that's your problem. The Dude's opinions are irrelevant to the validity of science. As is everyone else's. It's the scientific method is what I've been promoting, not my opinions or Skippy's. Science doesn't care what we think either way. But the fact is Skip took it that one little step too far.
Hedonist wrote:
YOU claim to know that there are a given set of properties which could possible exist for an entity that YOU personally would be willing to label "god". What are those properties that lead you to such a assertion?
I've done the opposite of that. I've never claimed to have knowledge of what those properties would be nor that they even exist. In my personal opinion (and I've just informed you how valid those are) those properties would be beyond current human comprehension. That is why we have wrestled with the enigma of existence for millenia. Remember, I'm not a creationist, and don't hold any current concepts of God much weight with science. And I do in fact think the idea is irrelevant to science.

Skippy doesn't. He thinks it's VERY relevant. AND he thinks he's proven a negative.

If it's not impossible, then there's only one other alternative. I'm waiting for someone to objectively demonstrate it's impossible. That does not mean that the concept is either correct or even scientifically viable.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
....
There is nothing more alien than an entity capable of creating universes.
I removed most of your posts because it was a non-answer to my root question, whereas, this one line is.

Are you then saying that 'creator of the universe' is the one and only property you believe is possible and which would qualify an entity as a "god" to you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, according to your best bud Nuggies, your use of the uppercase here would peg you as a Bible-thumping creationist, along with Polymath and me. But I bet you'll get a pass on this.
My use of upper case is because there is no italics function for emphasis, or if there is I dunno how to do it. Other than that all caps is only used for humorous purposes - usually for parodying fundies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
Oct 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, it's all just black-and-white to you. Well, you're wrong, you're so wrong it's pathetic.
I do NOT accepts what I understand of Skeptic's position, if I in fact understand it correctly. I believe that he has claimed that science proves that god is impossible. That is NOT my claim.
MY CLAIM is that the concept "god" has never been defined in clear enough terms to make any determination of possibility.
And that HAS been my point all along. And that science does not rule something out unless it has been falsified. And even then there is still the smallest possibility of falsification being overturned (like if we find that pre-Cambrian rabbit).
Hedonist wrote:
Which is why your claim that such a determination is possible intrigues me so. From my perspective, you have indeed made a positive claim. And I am still waiting on your proof.
Then you need to re-read my posts. Hopefully my latest post has been clear enough.

And remember, "proof" is for math and alcohol, not science. Science deals with facts and evidence. Only fundies claim "proof" in a scientific context. Something I have never done. But Skippy has.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
Oct 3, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I removed most of your posts because it was a non-answer to my root question, whereas, this one line is.
Are you then saying that 'creator of the universe' is the one and only property you believe is possible and which would qualify an entity as a "god" to you?
That may be okay for deists or "Nature's God" types. But other than that the only other thing I'd say would be needed is intelligence. Otherwise just calling natural forces at work to create universes "God" is nothing more than a needless metaphor in my opinion.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
Oct 3, 2012
 
I said "MY CLAIM is that the concept "god" has never been defined in clear enough terms to make any determination of possibility."

To which you replied:
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And that HAS been my point all along. And that science does not rule something out unless it has been falsified....
To which I would ADD -- "or unless it is an impossibility to begin with."

And this is the crux of our difference.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
Oct 3, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...And remember, "proof" is for math and alcohol, not science. Science deals with facts and evidence. Only fundies claim "proof" in a scientific context. Something I have never done. But Skippy has.
Semantics and you know it. Any evidence that any cogent definition of the concept "god" is even remotely possible.

And your last post you said "I've never claimed to have knowledge of what those properties would be nor that they even exist. In my personal opinion (and I've just informed you how valid those are) those properties would be beyond current human comprehension."

But yet you insist without any evidence whatsoever that there are a set of properties that are possible for an entity you would label "god". Fascinating.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
Oct 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
Oct 4, 2012
 
Before even attempting to answer the question of the existence of a deity, it is important to clarify which of the many definitions is being used.

The first issue is the meaning of the term 'exist'. As silly as this appears, it is a fairly deep question that is never seriously discussed in this context as far as I can see. How do you show something exists? How can you be sure something does not exist? What requirements are there to even begin to address the question?

As an example: does it make sense to say that something exists that does not interact with *anything* else in any way? Since it does not interact, there is absolutely no way to detect it, no way to see 'influences' of it. How do you deal with someone making the claim such a thing exists?

Next, most deities are thought to be supernatural. What, exactly does this mean? To be 'above' or 'transcend' the natural, yes, but what does *that* mean? Would a multi-verse obeying physical laws be supernatural? It would certainly fit the definition if we limit 'natural' to being inside our universe. And yet, it seems to me that a multiverse would *not* be considered supernatural by most people. Why not? How does the basic definition need to be changed?

For that matter, how do we define the 'natural'? I know as a scientist, we tend to define anything to be natural if it interacts in a detectable way with things we have previously seen to be natural (recursive definition). But then we run up against the definition of 'exist' above. Does it even make sense to talk about a 'supernatural' if the 'natural' includes anything that interacts with the natural?

Then we get to the properties of any proposed deity. many (not all) are supposed to be supernatural beings that cause our universe to exist. They are supposed to have intelligence. So a question immediately arises: would a race of intelligent beings that lives in the multiverse and has learned how to make universes be considered deities? What if they make these universes through the physical laws of the multiverse? What if they don't have absolute control over the properties of the universes made? What if some universes are made by team work? How about some designing some of the laws and others designing other laws for the universe in question?

It seem to me that before the question of whether God exists is asked, we need to clarify *exactly* what it is we are asking. And I have never seen enough details in the conception of a deity to allow the question to even be attempted, let alone answered (unless the answer is a clear NO: the greek pantheon does not exist, for example).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
Oct 5, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
I said "MY CLAIM is that the concept "god" has never been defined in clear enough terms to make any determination of possibility."
To which you replied:
<quoted text>
To which I would ADD -- "or unless it is an impossibility to begin with."
And this is the crux of our difference.
I repeat: If the position is that something *possibly* exists, then it is ALSO *possible* that it DOESN'T.

IMpossible is the only absolute here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
Oct 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics and you know it. Any evidence that any cogent definition of the concept "god" is even remotely possible.
Sorry, I disagree. Call it semantics if you like, but it's a habit from dealing with fundies for so long. After all they argue that science needs "proof" and that evolution is "only" a theory, and not a "law". Then we have to provide them with precise dictionary definitions and take the time to explain in detail what exactly these words mean in a scientific context. Then they accuse us of talking semantics.

Skip failed because he made exactly the same mistake.
Hedonist wrote:
And your last post you said "I've never claimed to have knowledge of what those properties would be nor that they even exist. In my personal opinion (and I've just informed you how valid those are) those properties would be beyond current human comprehension."
But yet you insist without any evidence whatsoever that there are a set of properties that are possible for an entity you would label "god". Fascinating.
No, I don't claim that there ARE, I said that it's POSSIBLE (remember I just explained above, "possible" is still open to falsification) because it's not been falsified. Those properties may or may not exist. They may or may not be possible. They may be possible but maybe still don't exist anyway. There may or may not be a God. Who knows? Who cares? As it's a non-falsifiable concept there's no way to tell.

Unless you're Skippy, because he DOES know. Because he has divine knowledge of every concept there is, falsifiable or non-falsifiable, and if it's possible or not. Because he IS God. Universal boundaries and scientific limitations be dammed. And he KNOWS that God does not exist. He said so.

And Skeptic promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

15 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 19 min Reason Personified 36
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 23 min CunningLinguist 223,091
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Carchar king 21,329
Why do i deserve no respect. 5 hr Carchar king 7
Introducing The Universal Religion Wed NightSerf 718
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Wed ChristineM 802
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) Wed Buck Crick 324
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••