Argue over the superior religion / belief

[Electrk]

msnbc is the only legit news source!!!

[Ad Bot]

[Harm94]

[Elecro]

omg the onion isnt real! its fake news for fun!

the joke.











your head.

[Mega-Bear]

the joke.

your head.

It was sarcasm.

[Elecro]

It was sarcasm.

I know, but I always wanted to do that.

[Slate521]

This is something to help cope with your moronic mother.


logic.
OT: I don't like politics. I'll write-in as myself during the 2036 Universal Elections, running against Philip DeFranco.

...phil.

[Nymethus]

vklak indeed...

[X Mod]

[Ben Grapevine]

HAHAHA

[Lalam24]

I don't see how your point is different from ten minutes ago. I don't want to repeat myself.

It wasn't, you're just stupid.

[Nymethus]

It wasn't, you're just stupid.

I'm not stupid. If your point isn't different from earlier, then I have nothing more to say and it is still your turn.
I'm not going to argue against the same points over and over.

[Lalam24]

I'm not stupid. If your point isn't different from earlier, then I have nothing more to say and it is still your turn.
I'm not going to argue against the same points over and over.

What I stated was fact, you haven't presented a plausible argument against it, you've simply been spewing nonsense expecting some kind of reward.

[Nymethus]

What I stated as fact, you haven't presented a plausible argument against it, you've simply been spewing nonsense expecting some kind of reward.

I haven't spewed any nonsense.
If you've added something to your point, that I managed to miss, then please point it out instead of calling me stupid and expecting everything to solve itself.

[Lalam24]

Argument displayed implying fact isn't correct:

Your sentences make my eyes moist. There's no actual proof for or against any god.

Display of fact contesting false accusations:

There most certainly is.  Do I have to say it again?  Catholicism doesn't contain any proof, therefore implying it is untrue.  However, once again, going beyond reason, let's say they didn't need proof.  The original testament displays depictions of knowledge which were widely accepted at the time (sun revolving around the earth, etc).  We later found out this wasn't true, and, in turn, the book was changed (new testament) to adapt to modern day HUMAN knowledge.  If God created us and the universe, wouldn't he have known about the universe before his creations did?  This is one of many examples of the book and its presenters contradicting their original viewpoints.

Ignoring of point highlighted in blue, references initial fact falsely:

There's still no proof for or against anything. No proof doesn't prove anything.

Repeat of initial argument:

The lack of proof is the definition of an impossibility, actually.  However, it's contestable and otherwise dynamic impossibility.  What I stated further is absolute impossibility, and cannot be refuted.

Breakdown describing your argument:

There are no sort-of-impossiblities. See below
Either it's impossible or it isn't.  The only reasonable assumption is that it doesn't, or cannot, exist, unless proven otherwise.  It is a mathematical fact that without proof, something cannot be proven.  I misworded the initial argument by stating impossible -- what I'm implying is, factually, the presented idea simply isn't real, given the lack of proof.  It can be contested with future evidence, but, until then, it doesn't exist.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. See: blue text

Contested with future post, summed up in red text above.

[Nymethus]

So, how does this make atheism flawed?