Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hollie cannot empirically or philosophically disprove the existence of god. No one ever has. End of subject.
[Writing in the third person], Jake cannot disprove my disprove of God's.
End of subject.
I don't have to disprove your inability in logic or philosophy.
Your own effort guts your arguments. Tis what tis.
You actually do have to disprove my disproof. 
It was a lot of silly tripe.Well, if you read that as an op-ed on fox news, t must be true.
I'll propose legislation banning any critique, criticism or complaints aimed at Christians.
"Hurting Christian's feelings" will thus be a criminal offense.
Did you read it?
Or did you just notice it was from Fox and dismiss it?
Do you feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe?
So your answer is yes, you do feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe.It was a lot of silly tripe.Did you read it?
Or did you just notice it was from Fox and dismiss it?
Do you feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe?
So the answer is "no", you didn't read it.
They also feel compelled to gain converts.
Well no.
I just wish people would keep this sort of stuff..private. I don't want to hear about your sex life either.
They don't have to keep that sort of stuff private. Just as they don't have to keep their sexuality private, or their color private.
They have a right to flaunt it.
So your answer is yes, you do feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe.It was a lot of silly tripe.
Do you feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe?
So the answer is "no", you didn't read it.
No, trust me, you've proven my point.
Atheists believe they are supernaturally endowed with greater powers of reasoning than any religious person, anywhere. They're just that much smarter and more clever, and better.
That is, in and of itself, a loony belief system. And it's what defines atheists.
That and their bizarre desire to convert the world to their worldview. I guess they want everybody to get this special smartness that atheism has bestowed upon THEM.
Atheists are basically pro faith and anti science. It takes more faith to be a non believer than to be a believer. The atheist says that they cannot believe in a God they cannot see. So they don't believe in sub atomic particles either. The atheist claims they will not believe in the existence of something that cannot be proved. That means that Higgs-Bosun cannot be proved.
We know that sub atomic particles exist because of the affect they have on other particles that we can see. We know that Higgs Bosun exists because everything has mass. No one has ever seen a quark. What's a muon? Do you know? Have you ever seen one? Can we prove that muons exist to the satisfaction of the ignorant dullards that watch American Idol? No. They are atheists.
In Subatomic Tracking, Clues to the Unseen Universe - NYTimes.com
An experiment that tracks subtle motions of subatomic particles called muons has found tantalizing evidence for a vast shadow universe of normally unseen matter existing side by side with ours, scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory said yesterday.
The significance of the findings has been thrown into doubt by a series of mathematical errors and theoretical disagreements by physicists around the world who have been weighing the evidence for what would, if correct, rank as one of the greatest discoveries in science.
The Brookhaven ''g minus 2'' experiment has produced extraordinarily minute observations of the gyrating muons. In a dispiriting turn for the experimenters, though, the theoretical predictions of how encounters with ordinary matter should affect the dance of the particles have come into doubt. Only through differences between the expected and observed behavior of the muons (pronounced MEW-ahnz) could the existence of new matter be inferred.
This is also how we can infer the existence of God.
They aren't just anti-science, they're anti-EDUCATION. Read that driveler hollie's crap; or her rants against OXFORD hahahaha....she's an ignorant yahoo...yet she postures as if she's the intellectual superior of everybody around her, because she's ATHEIST.
It's phucking hilarity incarnate.
Well, if you read that as an op-ed on fox news, t must be true.
I'll propose legislation banning any critique, criticism or complaints aimed at Christians.
"Hurting Christian's feelings" will thus be a criminal offense.
Did you read it?
Or did you just notice it was from Fox and dismiss it?
Actually, no. It's silly tripe because it's drenched in falsehoods, errors, cliches and assumptions that only an angry creationist would buy into.So your answer is yes, you do feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe.So the answer is "no", you didn't read it.
It's only silly tripe to idiots like yourself.
Well, if you read that as an op-ed on fox news, t must be true.
I'll propose legislation banning any critique, criticism or complaints aimed at Christians.
"Hurting Christian's feelings" will thus be a criminal offense.
Did you read it?
Or did you just notice it was from Fox and dismiss it?
(My bold)
Glanced through, noticed it was from Fox. Noticed that he's the Public Relations boffin @ Liberty U. - J. Falwell's critter. I don't think much of his reasoning. Everyone has a core set of beliefs, I suppose - but that doesn't make it their religion.
Then I dismissed it. (& yah, the imprimatur from Fox is a disincentive. Fox readily admits that they're an entertainment outlet. In fact, they seem inordinately proud of the fact. That crosses them off my A list for sources ... )
Actually, no. It's silly tripe because it's drenched in falsehoods, errors, cliches and assumptions that only an angry creationist would buy into.So your answer is yes, you do feel better about yourself for posting silly tripe.
It's only silly tripe to idiots like yourself.
I read what you posted. It was silly tripe.Actually, no. It's silly tripe because it's drenched in falsehoods, errors, cliches and assumptions that only an angry creationist would buy into.It's only silly tripe to idiots like yourself.
How would you know?
You didn't read it.
Christains are obligated by their faith to witness for Christ to nonbelievers. Athiests are not obligated to anything. The only "witnessing" that we do is in response to people on boards such as these, or, even worse, to "Elder" James and "Elder" John, who show up at our houses wearing white shirts, black ties, backpacks, and riding bicycles. I fixed that problem, myself, by buying a motion sensing water cannon on Ebay, and aiming it right at my door, and turning the faucet on when I see them working the street toward my house. The device is designed to keep animals out of your flower garden, but it works even better on Mormon missionaries and people distributing "the Watch Tower".
Did you read it?
Or did you just notice it was from Fox and dismiss it?
(My bold)
Glanced through, noticed it was from Fox. Noticed that he's the Public Relations boffin @ Liberty U. - J. Falwell's critter. I don't think much of his reasoning. Everyone has a core set of beliefs, I suppose - but that doesn't make it their religion.
Then I dismissed it. (& yah, the imprimatur from Fox is a disincentive. Fox readily admits that they're an entertainment outlet. In fact, they seem inordinately proud of the fact. That crosses them off my A list for sources ... )
You didn't read it neither.
It was about a debate that happened when former Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams took on the best known name in contemporary atheism, Richard Dawkins.
They were debating whether religion has a role in the 21st century.
Dawkins said it didnt.
Williams said it did.
In the end, Williams was handed a decidedly strong victory with more than two times as many votes from the audience as the infamous atheist, Dawkins. It was a triumphant day for the faithful and a shameful one for the irreligious.
Dawkins defeated in Cambridge Union religion debate
Lolol...."Dawkins is a religious idiot"....there's that supernatural superiority that all atheists receive from their *higher power*, surfacing yet again.
You didn't read it neither.
It was about a debate that happened when former Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams took on the best known name in contemporary atheism, Richard Dawkins.
They were debating whether religion has a role in the 21st century.
Dawkins said it didn’t.
Williams said it did.
In the end, Williams was handed a decidedly strong victory with more than two times as many votes from the audience as the infamous atheist, Dawkins. It was a triumphant day for the faithful and a shameful one for the irreligious.
Dawkins defeated in Cambridge Union religion debate
Lolol...."Dawkins is a religious idiot"....there's that supernatural superiority that all atheists receive from their *higher power*, surfacing yet again.
