Recent content by Quantum Windbag

Believe it or not, I am not here to teach you, I am here to mock you. If you want to learn read it for yourself, or, if you can't read, find someone else to tell you.

Yet there is.

There you go assuming you are intelligent again. Can you point out to me anywhere in that post where I said the Bible is evidence? Didn't think so, which makes your entire post a straw man argument.

I did not, but feel free to keep lying to yourself.

What I said is you wouldn't understand the math, and the question you asked was not about origins. Feel free to quote it to prove yourself wrong, if you really feel the need.

Tell you what, take your arguments up with the atheists who call it a religion, not me. My only point throughout this thread has been that, despite the claims of people like you, some atheists actually view their beliefs as a religion. Since I am not a zealot, I have no problem with them doing so.

If you really want to know, watch the show. I can assure you that, although she the reason she got pregnant is stupid, it is entirely plausible, and scientifically accurate. As for stupid stuff, all of the ghost shows that get onto History channel are stupid.

That wasn't a joke? RFOLMAO. OK, that is out of my system, for now. This is the definition you insist is wrong. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Funny how you ignore the words supreme importance in your response, isn't it? In other words, the only thing...

You go to church?!? What the **** for? Is it the only opportunity you get to say stupid things without people laughing at you? Or do you do it to evangelize?

Funny thing. There is a brand new TV show about a woman, who has never had sex, or even been in the same room as a naked man, who still manages to get pregnant. Maybe you should watch a couple of episodes so you will stop saying stupid things. By the way, did you know there are actual cases of...

Here we go again. Evangelical Atheism

Do you base that assumption on the basis of me actually proving you were wrong about a few things in this thread alone?

I didn't? Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of...

Only if you first assume that the gods actually designed something.

Evidence does not have flaws, arguments do. You keep conflating evidence with arguments, and dismissing it because you are unwilling to actually consider the possibility that, if you looked at the entire body of evidence, you would understand that proof is actually a word you misunderstood.