THE COMMON LAW OF THIS BOARD

[~M~]

explain why we should give a shit? Woopdie do, we got a bible freak.

bible freak? He is a leading expert on the issue.

philosophy deals with the general concepts of god, if he can't even get that right then bible based arguements are baseless.

Licona's argument, if believed, should entail or at least strongly suggest the supernatural. Once granted, then it serves in building a case for plausible existence of a God.

[Dil]

Oh, like the bible prophecy "fulfillments"? That's bullshit too.

well, if you don't want us to randomly attack things, just be more specific, you're being vague.

just the story of jesus has enough gaping holes in it to deny christianity.

[Brad Reddekopp]

you might as well give yourself a blow job.

I would if I could.

Might i suggest that there are theists who can devour you and your b/f Francois in debate, but yet do not see much competition?

Formal debates tell you who is more skilled in the art of debating, not who is correct. In discussions in which reflection and considered examination of the topics is paramount, theism fails every time.

[Hierophant]

Stop your fucking bullshit and find us someone. You are full of shit, ~M~. Seriously.

[vertigo]

M is all talk.

[~M~]

Oh, like the bible prophecy "fulfillments"? That's bullshit too.

Perhaps. So....?

well, if you don't want us to randomly attack things, just be more specific, you're being vague.

Can you point out my vagueness?

just the story of jesus has enough gaping holes in it to deny christianity.

It does? Well, Golly! why didn't you say so?!! Is Licona aware of this?

[~M~]

Stop your fucking bullshit and find us someone. You are full of shit, ~M~. Seriously.

Are you retarded?

My only claim was that you would get destroyed by expert theists. Yet, for some reason, I am now under some obligation to set up a debate. How does that follow?


The truth value of my statement remains unscathed even under my reluctance to find you a debate. An analogy: I see someone who likes to play hockey. We talk and I tell him that hockey professional could beat him. He, a non-professional denies such and tells me that I now must produce a hockey showdown between him and a pro. If not, "i am all talk" like your fellow retard vertigo claims.


gtfo.

[~M~]

I would if I could.

So would I.

Formal debates tell you who is more skilled in the art of debating, not who is correct.

I agree...partially. The argument counts too. no?

[Brad Reddekopp]

Formal debates tell you who is more skilled in the art of debating, not who is correct.

I agree...partially. The argument counts too. no?

Counts toward what?

[Dil]

Stop your fucking bullshit and find us someone. You are full of shit, ~M~. Seriously.

Are you retarded?

My only claim was that you would get destroyed by expert theists. Yet, for some reason, I am now under some obligation to set up a debate. How does that follow?


The truth value of my statement remains unscathed even under my reluctance to find you a debate. An analogy: I see someone who likes to play hockey. We talk and I tell him that hockey professional could beat him. He, a non-professional denies such and tells me that I now must produce a hockey showdown between him and a pro. If not, "i am all talk" like your fellow retard vertigo claims.


gtfo.

By expert theists you mean rhetorical spinmasters? Fuck them.

If you don't want to argue the other side that's fine.

Repeat after me:

If

there are

decent arguements

out there

for us

to look at

then fucking

post them.

(I hope I put enough emphasis this time )

[PlatypusOfCarnage]

By expert theists you mean rhetorical spinmasters? Fuck them.

I believe this is commonly pronounced apologists.

And yes. Fuck them.

[Dil]

So M is saying these men/woman without any fucking substance can 'take us down'?

geesh.

[PlatypusOfCarnage]

What they can do is try to rationalize problems or twist them in such a way that they feel justified in keeping their belief.

[Moluesh]

What they can do is try to rationalize problems or twist them in such a way that they feel justified in keeping their belief.

Isn't that what religions do?

[mega jester]

Dil, have you ever come across a theist whose arguments impressed you? Not that you concluded they might be right, but that they gave you something testing to think about?