A Christian Refutes Himself

[Fweethawt]

THIS is a beautiful thing! Ha-ha!

 

 

 

[JosiahTheAxeman]

Too funny! 

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

He mistakenly admits, biology is notoriously hard to predict. sometimes you're healthy and just drop dead and nobody knows why, and sometimes you're almost assuredly going to die, and all of a sudden you become perfectly well and nobody knows why. That's just the nature of complex systems, shit happens, predicting anything with perfect accuracy is next to impossible, and none of it is proof of God.

[DrNo]

Not once but twice in the same call. Wow. Good for him for being honest in his answers, though, and not trying to doublespeak his way out of them.

[JamesG]

Hhahahahaha damn that guy is smart

[Pantophobia]

He is a special kind of derp. 

[seeker001]

pwned. Cluestick, apply directly to the forehead. He has the potential just needs to be led out of the fog.

[skepticalme]

Awesome! Owned by his own logic.  This effectively shows the level of cognative disodense that true believers have. The same logic he uses to affirm god, he denies when turned around.

[duderonomy]

How is it logical to compare a horse with a rhino horn in it's forehead that was said to have once roamed Earth, with a god that explicitly claims (within the monotheistic religions and I think most others) to be invisible?

[R. S. Martin]

How is it logical to compare a horse with a rhino horn in it's forehead that was said to have once roamed Earth, with a god that explicitly claims (within the monotheistic religions and I think most others) to be invisible?

 

Is that a serious question? Because if it is, it seems perhaps if you looked at all aspects of the god-unicorn comparison you would see the similarities.

 

For one, the gods of religions are supposed to have performed mighty deeds that could be proven to their credit if they had actually done said deeds. So far, all the deeds credited to them have natural explanations.

 

Also, unicorns are merely said to have roamed the earth, in the same way as fairies. No evidence exists that creatures of these descriptions ever existed to roam the earth. Much evidence has been found of extinct creatures but not of unicorns or fairies or anything that could be called such.

 

What we've got is claims for unseen entities (gods, unicorns) either existing in the natural world or performing deeds on it.

 

Similarities:

1. For both entities, there are claims of physical existence or performance of deeds on physical matter.
2. Neither entity was ever seen by any human.
3. No evidence was ever found to prove either entity's existence.
4. All the deeds attributed to gods have natural explanations, making the gods either natural phenomena (gravity, bacteria, weather patterns, etc.) or nonexistent.
5. All the evidence we find for ancient or prehistoric creatures is other than unicorns.

These similarities prompt some of us to compare belief in gods to belief in unicorns. You chose to call it by a fancier name.

[duderonomy]

 

How is it logical to compare a horse with a rhino horn in it's forehead that was said to have once roamed Earth, with a god that explicitly claims (within the monotheistic religions and I think most others) to be invisible?

 

Is that a serious question? Because if it is, it seems perhaps if you looked at all aspects of the god-unicorn comparison you would see the similarities.

 

For one, the gods of religions are supposed to have performed mighty deeds that could be proven to their credit if they had actually done said deeds. So far, all the deeds credited to them have natural explanations.

 

Also, unicorns are merely said to have roamed the earth, in the same way as fairies. No evidence exists that creatures of these descriptions ever existed to roam the earth. Much evidence has been found of extinct creatures but not of unicorns or fairies or anything that could be called such.

 

What we've got is claims for unseen entities (gods, unicorns) either existing in the natural world or performing deeds on it.

 

Similarities:

1. For both entities, there are claims of physical existence or performance of deeds on physical matter.
2. Neither entity was ever seen by any human.
3. No evidence was ever found to prove either entity's existence.
4. All the deeds attributed to gods have natural explanations, making the gods either natural phenomena (gravity, bacteria, weather patterns, etc.) or nonexistent.
5. All the evidence we find for ancient or prehistoric creatures is other than unicorns.

These similarities prompt some of us to compare belief in gods to belief in unicorns. You chose to call it by a fancier name.

 

R.S, it was a semi-serious question. I get your point, but instead of looking at the similarities, look at the differences.

 

I'm just saying the Unicorn/God comparisons don't make a lot of sense to me when comparing beliefs. Although we would be on the same side in the end, I think I could argue that the comparison isn't any more valid than comparing apples to henweighs.

 

Maybe this would be a good new thread?  I dunno, maybe not.