Wiegraf's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Wiegraf's Profile › Wiegraf's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 (of 162 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: The Foolishness Of Atheists Has No End by wiegraf: 9:43pm On Apr 02, 2013

Orikinla: Who told you that Seun is an atheist?
Then why should he continue to answer Oluwaseun?
Who is Oluwa in Yoruba?

Did Bill Gates tell you that?

eediot....

4 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: Sleep Paralysis or Being 'Pressed' At Night - Natural or Supernatural? by wiegraf: 11:55am On Apr 02, 2013

Ok reyg, what do you think more important as far as seeing stuff is, your eyes or your brain?

Christianity Etc › Re: How Do You Engage Religionists In Real World? by wiegraf: 11:51am On Apr 02, 2013

NL member: Is the OP of this thread still alive?

Supposedly he had another id.....hmmmm, who could it be?

Christianity Etc › Re: Sleep Paralysis or Being 'Pressed' At Night - Natural or Supernatural? by wiegraf: 11:50am On Apr 02, 2013

Reyginus: Can we explain these ways scientifically, judging sleep paralysis or any other?

Yes

Christianity Etc › Re: Sleep Paralysis or Being 'Pressed' At Night - Natural or Supernatural? by wiegraf: 11:03am On Apr 02, 2013

Heatblast: I once woke up to find myself bleeding from my right hand

Only to later remember that i had a dream in which I got so angry that I punched the window close to me.
Does that count as mystery marks?

That IS mystery mark, but people will believe what they want to, especially as they've just been 'possessed'. The scars, which are not even common, are aquired unwittingly, one way or the other.

Christianity Etc › Re: Funny Questions Nigerian Christians Ask Atheists.. by wiegraf: 2:05am On Apr 02, 2013

greatgenius: ^^^ lol @ Wiegraf and his name calling. How you been god brother

Good, God, good. Was your project successful? You surely can't fail, considering you're omnipotent, etc

Christianity Etc › Re: I Love Her But The Spirit Using Her I Hate! by wiegraf: 1:50am On Apr 02, 2013

I just hope she wasn't forced or coerced into marrying you op.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Foolishness Of Atheists Has No End by wiegraf: 1:43am On Apr 02, 2013

Orikinla: But the irony even here in Nigeria is the fact that atheists still end up appealing and applying to believers in God for jobs and many things.

I tried, I at least managed to read up to this point.

Soooo, atheists shouldn't apply for jobs from xtians. Why? Please, keep it short. Even if I write some of the longer posts around here, I'm fairly hypocritical, and frankly, what you'll post will likely be dross.

Also, why post this on a site that belongs to .......and wait for it........ an atheist?
Using a computing device built on principles set about by ............ and wait for it .......... a gay atheist?

Perhaps Bill Gates et al, they myriad atheist scientists, business men, philanthropists etc, should only bother with fellow atheists. Actually, scratch that, every philosophy, religion, tribe, group, whatever should just look after their own.

Or are you trying to make this list

http://nigerianschoolsonline.com.ng/index.php/blog/society-lifestyle/420-top-13-people-who-made-christianity-look-bad

Else, I really can't see why you'd make such a remarkably foolish statement (except stoopidity of course).

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Funny Questions Nigerian Christians Ask Atheists.. by wiegraf: 1:28am On Apr 02, 2013

DAVID!!!

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Are Blacks Christians? by wiegraf: 8:14pm On Mar 31, 2013

Why so much troll feeding? Who let hypocrites in here anyhoo?

Christianity Etc › Re: See Madness O ! Christians Crucifing Themselves In Phillipines! Crazy! by wiegraf: 6:01am On Mar 31, 2013

Well...

Christianity Etc › Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf(op): 4:51pm On Mar 30, 2013

Just a note, this moves away from fantastical claims like judeo-xtian ones.

Deep Sight: An excellent choice of understanding, which is exactly what i hoped for.

Now tell me, do you not think it would be a logical absurdity to be able to create free willed beings and at the same time ensure that they do not suffer?

Limiting the suffering is a very attainable objective. We attempt it ourselves, and without violating free will.

Deep Sight: Reflect closely on this: genuinely free willed beings would be able to make choices. Including choices to suffer, or choices that cause suffering.

As such, you will agree that this being a logical absurdity, is clearly out of the purview of omnipotence, as you have already said, no?

Nobody is hindering free will, just putting in place measures to limit the amount of suffering involved. Suffering like say that caused by those infringing on the rights of others with impunity.

And also, again, this ignores natural evil. Lots of beings suffer through absolutely no fault of theirs, just natures capricious whims. Free will need not be involved with suffering.

Even as the result of others' actions you have to acknowledge that a lot of suffering comes about as a result of absolutely no agent, non at all, purposely doing something 'evil'. Consider the road to hell is filled with good intentions, henlon's razor, etc etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Simple miscommunication tends to be the source of most of the grief we inflict on ourselves, imo.

Anyways, I fail to see how at the very least the god providing a guiding/helping hand is an issue here.

Deep Sight: Good again. You accede that humans may conseivably create worlds. In the stretch of eternity, given enough time, I dare say we would in fact do such.

What makes you build your argument against God's existence in this instance, from the premise, as adduced by religions, that this earth and all its flora and fauna are the creation of an omnipotent God? Why could they not also be the creation of other beings in existence as well?

Just as surely as we had the freedom to tinker with genetics and contrive the chihuahua. Why is it not possible that we are just like the chihuahua - namely - that we are the result of similar tinkering by other beings - which tinkering cannot be avoided, since we agree that freewill and the absence of suffering would be a logical absurdity, no?

And the omnipotent still bears some responsibility, why not? He provided the platform which is now being abused yet does nothing about it, why?

The browser you're using right now is a platform, provided by mozilla/google/microsoft whoever, which executes on your personal space; your computer. It's simply a program which simply acquires bytes from an online resource then executes them on your computer. What I'm trying to highlight here is that this process isn't like say watching a real time movie online or something similar, like your browser just showing ready made images/formats etc from the server online. The code (or usually most of it), the action is executed by your computer, on your computer by it's processor, etc. The browser does a lot of the work, it collects instructions from elsewhere then executes them in your space.

Now, in the old days especially, the browser could do quite a lot on your computer without you knowing, using your space/resources as it sees fit. With that sort of freedom to do whatever it wishes to on your property came; viruses. Lots of them, as well as even accidents and other forms of unintended harm. So it was/is basically people elsewhere using your computer, your 'space', to do as they please regardless of your wishes.

Well, browser builders provided the platform, they didn't write viruses themselves of course, but they did provide the platform and they could indeed do something about. What was the solution? Simply, they imposed certain limits, not random ones mind you, these were decided democratically, but importantly they give you, the user or owner of the 'space', the option of allowing the potentially harmful code to run should you want to. Even on normal windows, without the use of a browser, you get that box that asks "allow program Bleep to run?", part of a system called UAC (user access control), before you run a potentially harmful program. This is put in place to prevent people from infringing on your rights.

Now, how was anyone's free will is being violated in these situations? You want to create a virus, well do so, no ones stopping you. Do note though that as you're essentially infringing on the rights of others the law will come after you if it can. As for you the user, do you want to run the virus? Well, go ahead, no one's forcing you not to, no one is damaging/limiting your free will, you've simply been warned. Do feel free to practice your free will and proceed should you wish to.

Now the above is scenario is responsible, at least much more so than building something potentially harmful then washing your hands off it, especially when you can clearly do something about it. And even more so if you built the platform with the intention of it being used by other people.

Then, to compound on the above example, also imagine a platform that is inherently faulty, a la natural evil like tsunamis, famines, etc. Some windows versions get a lot of criticism for being unreliable, and why not? They clearly could have been better built but microsoft was.... incompetent and irresponsible.

God(s) is exempt from such criticism because? Or are you saying this is the best possible universe it could have built? If so, can you or the god show us why? Like I've been trying to demonstrate, free will is not a good enough excuse.

Deep Sight: Now please reflect on that for a moment and then more importantly on this: assuming but not conceding that you succeed in your argument: that would only qualify omnipotence, and not circumscribe the existence of an originating factor - God - no?

In addressing this last, recall, at all events, that the qualification of omnipotence thereby, would not be at variance with that which you acceded to - namely that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities: and certainly freewill without suffering will be just one such logical absurdity.

I hope you see the issues here?

This was never about whether a god exists or not, it was about relationships between and reconciling evil, some questionable behavior/decisions, and purpose assuming a god existed.

I hope you see that free will alone does not justify all suffering? Checks, balances could always have been placed.

Deep Sight: O, I simply mean by "necessary" - - - that in the event of freewill, suffering cannot be written out of the equation even by an omnipotent God, since that would be a logical absurdity, no?

And indeed, we must go further to state that the free-willed beings, if truly free, must also be free to choose any extremity of suffering, or cause any extremity of suffering through their actions, no?

As I just said above: free-willed beings must be free to choose, encounter, perpetuate and cause any degree of suffering from their free actions, no?

And this would be excluded from the realm of control of an omnipotent God, as such would then be a logical absurdity, no?
.......

Such an action would be a logical absurdity. Where is the free will if indeed the omnipotent steps in to do such. Where is my freewill to inflict suffering for example? Or my free will to even be masochistic?

As above, I already stated not all suffering is necessary. Some is, not all.

They are free to suffer, but they shouldn't be free to infringe on the rights of others with impunity just because they can. This is simple morality. So long as you're sentient particularly, I shouldn't have the right to make you say, my slave. I could go ahead and try to enslave you, but in this day and age society will (rightly) persecute me if I get caught. My free will isn't being hindered, I did make the choice of trying to enslave you knowing full the consequences, no?

And this still ignores natural evil, suffering inflicted without any conscious agent at all, eg earthquakes. It must exist, ok, say a necessary byproduct of physical laws. That doesn't mean absolutely nothing should be done about it, does it? We're building tsunami warning systems, no? When these disasters occur we do our best to alleviate the suffering, etc etc. We do not do nothing at all then claim some sort of moral superiority. This is only considering conscious, sentient life mind you, similar concepts could be applied to all life.

Deep Sight: Has it occurred to you that this may also be a logical absurdity? For if an omnipotent is defined as God, and such is necessarily immaterial and transcendental: then how exactly may it directly create the physical in the direct manner you contemplate. Would it not rather be obvious that for such to occur, there would have to be logical effects proceeding one from another in a necessary and unavoidable manner, such as to take away such "personal" and "arbitrary" interventions from the omnipotent - on account that they would of course constitute logical absurdities?

Yet others (and not necessarily judeo-xtians, even some deists do this) would claim this same god can hear their thoughts, or judge them, or somehow help them, manipulate certain events, etc etc. Are we now arbitrarily deciding what this god can or cannot do? Why is it necessarily "immaterial and transcendental"? It has no means of interfering because? If it cannot even do that then it is a rather limited omnipotent imo, I do not think the term 'omnipotent' need apply to it.

Deep Sight: As I said before, what you qualify by this argument is the attribute of omnipotence, and not the existence of God. And I assert to you that you have answered your own question on the issue when you say that omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities.

Secondly, on the suffering question above, you will also agree that this is within the scope of our free will. I am free to stop my car suddenly on the third mainland bridge. This will lead to lots of traffic or even accidents that will cause huge suffering to many people. You will agree that it would be a logical absurdity for an omnipotent to stop me from doing that and at the same time endow me with free will, no?

You're free to do so, your free will's still intact, no? Doesn't mean the omnipotent shouldn't use its own free will to somehow punish the offender, get the car off the road, or take many other possible actions which could lessen suffering, no?

Deep Sight: Yes, and I will have to ask for your understanding of omniscience as well, before addressing that!

Good morning.

That would take far too much time to get into.

Good afternoon to you ser as well

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Are Blacks Christians? by wiegraf: 12:55pm On Mar 30, 2013

Why are there hypocritical muslims op?

Christianity Etc › Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf(op): 3:41am On Mar 30, 2013

Deep Sight: Are humans omnipotent?

Could humans conceivably create worlds? Could humans engage in planetary engineering? In fact, i'll answer that one for you, research is already underway in that respect. Massive research. Could humans make worlds? With creatures therein?

And once again, are humans omnipotent?

Please answering these will go a long way towards addressing your issue in your OP.

Several issues here. I would first have to understand what you understand by the term "omnipotent".

Does that term, in your view, extend to having the capacity to do illogical things? Such as creating square circles, etc?

Omnipotent implies being able to do anything conceivably possible, this would exclude logical absurdities. I can live with this definition, I think. I choose it for various reasons

Humans are not omnipotent, even collectively. We haven't even mastered the energy on this planet, let alone that of the sun or a galaxy.

Humans, even if we were able to harness the energy of galaxies, would still not be omnipotent imo as I cannot see us manipulating physical laws in this universe. Eg, altering the value of the speed of light. Should changing such basic constants be possible then the case for our omnipotency becomes much stronger.

As for building another universe and possessing the ability to tune it as we see fit, that is possible. In fact, that's more or else what virtual universes in computers are. It might be possible to create physical universes as well, but that remains to be seen. Even if we were to create these universes there's no guarantee that we would be omnipotent to said universes, even if we exclude logical absurdities from our definition of omnipotent. We might simply have no say in establishing certain physical limits for instance.

Deep Sight: Secondly I would need to understand what you regard as suffering.

Does work - even excruciating work, qualify as "suffering" of a nature that a creator should seek to obviate?

Now, after this, I would need to understand if you believe that all suffering should in fact be obviated.

Are there forms of suffering that are either -

1. - Necessary

2. - Unavoidable

or

3. - Beneficial

These questions are very important, so if possible, I would appreciate your answers to them.

But most importantly, also address this further question - If Evolution is in fact the reality as to the development of species, would it be normal or not, to expect that the very fact of evolutionary impetus is necessarily derived from suffering and various forms of a creature's inadequacy in its environment which occassions suffering.

Suffering being necessary depends on the goal. Assuming the goal is creating conscious beings, do I think consciousness must exist with suffering? That is unavoidable so long as consciousness involves emotions, which include emotional pain. Do I think all suffering is necessary? Not at all.

Deep Sight: I hope my foregoing questions inspire some further thinking on this.

Well, not really, as I basically don't think the scale of suffering we encounter is necessary.

Elaborating, the indifferent, dog eat dog machinations of nature do not look planned to me. Assuming an omnibenovelent or 'good' being, if evolution was planned by it, evolution would be the best it could offer but still a desperate, last ditch attempt. It wouldn't be the effort of an omnipotent/omnibenovelent. For instance, why not create the lifeform(s) perfect from the word go? So long as it cared, an omnipotent should be able to step in and reduce the suffering. Even we try to do so (but usually fail) as the apex predators on this planet.

I also end up with questions like; supposing the goal were to create self-sustainable life, why does an omnipotent need to achieve anything? Is its goal vital? If so, that alone questions its omnipotency strongly. If it isn't, then there was no need for the amount of suffering lots of beings have endured through no fault of theirs for whatever goal wasn't that important in the first place. Non at all. Just so a few beings could enjoy at the expense of all those others?

This is all ignoring the omniscience claims, that's another convoluted mess as well.

Christianity Etc › Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf(op): 12:48am On Mar 30, 2013

Deep Sight: Is there anything in the essential idea of the existence of God, to suggest that God created human beings, or even that God created anything on this earth, or even anything in this universe?

If this question seems confusing, let me put it another way. - What do you think is the future of biological engineering. Does it not occur to you that as Chihuahuas are a faulty breed of dog contrived by man, the creatures in this world could similarly be. . . . .?

Not sure what you're driving at, but we could only be faulty if the 'god' involved wasn't omnipotent. My gripe is mostly with the omnipotent, 'loving' versions of god.

For the others, even if inadvertently, they bear some responsibility. Even if suffering was not part of its plans, fact is it exists yet it does nothing about it. Why? I might not be the one breeding chihuahuas but I'm here all morally superior because I think this is a silly, immoral practice. If I could do something about it I would, but I can't. So, why are the gods silent?

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Is The One And Only Logicboy... by wiegraf: 8:07pm On Mar 29, 2013

ooman: why dont you take charge. why do you all expect me to take charge. sorry but I dont have such time.

Because I don't want to. You would if you could, how many threads a day were you making back then? You clearly had time.

And what's 'take charge' anyways?

Christianity Etc › Re: Dog Breeds, Banned? by wiegraf(op): 7:58pm On Mar 29, 2013

Bump

Suffice to say some of the genius responses above are not delicious enough.

So, theists claiming a loving, omnipotent dog, what say you?

Breeders of dogs like chihuahas deserve a $hit load of vitriol heaped upon them (imo), as do the people who actually buy these dogs.

People like Nadiya Suleman probably should be locked up for adding 8 more kids to her brood, test tube babies no less, despite the fact she already had 6... on welfare.

In these cases the selfishness is amazing, life being brought into this universe irresponsibly, just to indulge egos more or else. Despite there being clearly better options which would involve less suffering these people still chose to breed for rather petty reasons. They deserve the full scorn of the public (well, imo).

So, what's with god? He willingly, knowingly creates this universe and brings life into the picture. He knows full well the suffering they will face yet still chose to go through with it. To compound on the decision to create irresponsibly, he doesn't do anything at all to alleviate their problems despite the fact he's allegedly omnipotent. In other words, he can clearly do something about it but chooses not to. Consider, thousands of kids will die tonight from raw hunger, a situation inflicted on them through no fault of theirs, and a kindly omnipotent being well aware of their situation won't raise a finger to help, why? By some accounts, he'll even send them to hell after they die, but he loves them all the same...

Before anyone goes around trying to blame this on free will, consider how weak of an argument that is. How is free will a good enough excuse to hide in skies or wherever and claim mysteriousness? For what again? If you created dogs, programming the potential of savagery into them, then observed them tear each other up without doing anything at all to aid them when you clearly could, then you're a sadistic sociopath, simple.

If you, good theist, still think you can look past that, then also consider the problems of natural evils like earthquakes etc, which are not brought about by any conscious agents. Why create these then do nothing when they cause untold suffering? It's akin to the breeder shooting the dogs or setting up mines for no good reason (other than maybe giggles), then again doing.... nothing. Just watches them suffer. Why, for mysteriousneseseses whargabl?

He's at the very least as culpable as toy dog breeders and Suleman. Actually much more so if you ask me considering omnipotence. If you agree breeders and Suleman are morally reprehensible, then why do you think our imaginary overlord god is somehow any better? Simply because the bible/koran/whatever story book you prefer, despite all the evidence to the contrary, says so?

Christianity Etc › Re: Where Is The One And Only Logicboy... by wiegraf: 3:44pm On Mar 29, 2013

Where him go na? Ooman.....failed. i need someone else to push my world conquering atheist agendah

Christianity Etc › Re: London Black Atheists by wiegraf: 4:36am On Mar 29, 2013

davidylan: do you understand the issue yourself or you're just running around defending another atheist point of view?

Fixing

davidylan: do you understand the issue yourself or you're just running around defending another atheist's point of view?

Are you already lost? Seems you believe there are atheist povs (other then our stance on the existence of god(s)), doctrine, rituals, etc etc. You think addressing these is the purpose of these meetings? Perhaps you also expect them to worship their god(s) as well?

Here again

op: We meetup for serious discussions on a wide range of topics connected to atheism, science, social issues, religion, evolution, cosmology, and neuroscience amongst other things. We actively seek to improve our understanding of our stunning, incredible universe, from a natural perspective. A universe that does not need a supernatural creator to explain its existence, nor how it functions. We also meetup socially for fun, entertainment, restaurant outings, watching films, visiting theatres and museums etc.

If this is your idea of a church then I suppose a large amount of all groups and organizations, eg every political party, clubs etc would qualify as churches, no?

Christianity Etc › Re: 5 Proof Of Gods Existence by wiegraf: 9:38pm On Mar 28, 2013

0/5

Christianity Etc › Re: Contending The False And Heretic Teachings By Obadiah777 by wiegraf: 7:58am On Mar 26, 2013

obadiah777: THANKS FOR BEING A SILENT SUPPORT TOO WIEGRAF. SOMEHOW I GOT THE FEELING YOU WERE ON MY SIDE.

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 7:50am On Mar 26, 2013*

^^^

You give him far too much credit imo, toy dog is more apt

God made science = god did it. I don't think you'd find 'god created science' in most textbooks, but david of course feels the need to add that bit. Then all the quotes to show just how awesome the bible is and that god even directtly 'did it'/set it off, etc, tbaba style. Looks like desperation to me, but meh...

edit:

musKeeto: I had to pick an image with crayons...

Kayi, muskeeto.. I didn't even notice this. Oh boy, u harsh...
Kayi..

But I fear it's still missing 'miRaCLe' scrawled somewhere there, and maybe 'DOg', so I wouldn't get my hopes up about it working

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 6:52am On Mar 26, 2013

musKeeto: Game. Set. Match.

What sort of scientist constantly looks for a way to say "dog did it!" sef?

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 2:06am On Mar 26, 2013*

davidylan: this is dishonest ignorance at its worst. The bible fully supports the scientific tenet that is the water cycle.

[color=#990000]All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Ecclesiastes 1:7

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon t....blah blah blah

Rabid, silly, senseless poodle strikes again..

You call his post the bolded after reading the op? I don't see you calling the op 'dishonest ignorance at its worst' despite the fact he has clearly stated he's aware of the water cycle but willfully ignores it. Why is the op exempt from silly rabid attacks, hmmm?

The op himself said it with his own words, BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO. Whether the bible (as usual) contradicts itself or not is completely irrelevant to alfa's statement. In fact, whether it states something entirely different (based on your interpretation) or doesn't even say anything on the subject is irrelevant. In op's view the bible clearly says something on the subject, and whatever it is contradicts modern science. Op's determined to be a proud zombie and act on a key belief of his; the bible cannot be wrong, it's infallible. Thus, his reason for believing the water cycle is hogwash is that as far as he's concerned, again,THE BIBLE SAYS SO. (alfa even calls it 'his' (op's) bible)

So explain to me how alfa is being dishonest when he's repeating something the op himself confirms? In fact, the op even thanked him?!

You jump in foolishly, angrily and blindly whenever you see an atheist, making inane accusations, then project on others; 'atheists are angry'. Of course one would be, when you constantly make such stoopid attacks. What do you expect, milk and cabin?

edits

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Contending The False And Heretic Teachings By Obadiah777 by wiegraf: 11:47pm On Mar 25, 2013

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 10:30pm On Mar 25, 2013

onyfrank: .
Is it not possible?
Its possible dearie, and it happend.
Thats is d reason y should start thanking Christ Jesus 4 d grace He brought, if nt fires and bears would hav consumed u siiince.

:O

Well played, ser. Well played

Those things happened because the bible says so. Ok

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 7:51pm On Mar 25, 2013

Bidam: These guys that always claim they don't believe in God because He is unseen. I wonder whether they have seen carbon dioxide and nitrogen because they also have a cycle as we were taught in biology.

Jokes Etc › Re: Riddles Riddles Riddles!!! by wiegraf: 7:49pm On Mar 25, 2013

alaric saltzman: Lemme answer the unanswered ones...
3. Mushroom
4. Against ur will
5. Envelope
6. Moon

You think say I get wahala, I never start...

5 and 4 are mixed up...

6. is blatantly wrong. The moon clearly wasn't formed with the earth but after. Just like the sun formed before the earth. Months is a better answer, even though that's a human construct they would still apply retroactively

You don't need windows to run chatrooms.... Android, linux, mac etc.... No windows involved...

The only I really like here is 4, it's so damn se.xy

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 7:33pm On Mar 25, 2013

onyfrank: .
Thanx. Atleast one person understands.

What of talking fires and bears killing 42 boys, they all occurred, yes?

Christianity Etc › Re: Even Water Proves That Atheism Is False. by wiegraf: 12:30am On Mar 25, 2013

onyfrank: .
Bt bible said

All the evidence one will ever need

Christianity Etc › Re: Davidylan, Striktlymi, Ihenobi, Chukkynwob: I Renouce Atheism. by wiegraf: 11:12pm On Mar 24, 2013

davidylan: If you read my post at all, i was not interested in "addressing" anything in your post because there really is nothing you can say to a rambling response that speaks more to a heart that is merely expressing pent-up bitterness.

Secondly, you seem to have this delusional fantasy that i am interested in your opinion about God. Again read my post, no such interest. I have only wondered why you bother about a God you despise so much. Surely your time could be better invested elsewhere. But feel free to rant away.

Nice to know you just foolishly post with no intention of addressing issues.

As for the bold, like I've said, you give your dog far too much credit. But again, gorge yourself on as much hubris as you can manage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 (of 162 pages)