>>304

I see a problem with that picture.

a bajillion hours in paint.

i didnt make it. but any way why do you think yours is any better from the rest? they all use the same book exept beleave a little difrent. i noticed you eather didnt list atheism in there as a choice. is it becouse of the proof this video shows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs

so far i have not seen more proof than this or they try to pervert science to link the bible to a rational scientific answer such as energy exist therfor god exists.
oh let me disprove that video by the way befor bannana arguements are thrown at me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArPNtiQDcM

accuser ftw

accuser wordfilters to...

ACCUSER, I like it.

Theory. The word is Theory. Not thery.
It's 'Can't' and 'Isn't', as well Don't forget the apostrophies.

But your point is right. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.

>>306

Depending on what you meant by "universal" when you called the negative that, I'd have to disagree. The halting problem is a famous example, as is the incompleteness theorem.

well the OPs god point is now proven wrong. but id have to agree that he is right on the point of killing people if they disagree. just about every religion has that in there teachings sadly. but when he says you people he dosnt keep in mind hes not the only unbeleaver on this site. maybe some of us like to study and learn the subject as best we can befor we say i dont beleave and have actual reasons for not beleaving. i seek knowledg and if im proven wrong im actualy glad becouse that means breakthrue and knowledge is gaind. ex:i thought some things on horus were true and learnd that some things are not. jesus and horus still closly resemble eachother BUT i now know what isnt true to what is so in my next arguement i wont look like a fool.

>>265

this just in: predictions are right on the first try 100% of the time

>>278

A fun paradox of people who claim to be scientists but aren't: they acknowledge the fallibility of the models only when convenient. "We were wrong two days ago, but we were pretty sure we were right. We told people what to do based on our wrong beliefs, and they did it, because they trusted us. Yesterday we discovered we were wrong two days ago, but we had a new model that explained that. We were wrong then, too, with our new model, but we thought we were right. We told people what to do based on that new model, and they obeyed, because they still trusted us. Today, however, we have discovered that we were wrong. We have a new model, though, that explains everything. You should do what we say. You will, because you trust us."

>>279
I really have no place here and I actually stumbled upon this thread by chance but I would like to cast a light on what I perceive.

Scientists can be wrong. In fact that's their job is to be wrong and to hopefully one day become right. With religion, it could be wrong. But if you were to change it or question it it would not look as believable as science because science is changed whereas religion is not.

I believe science more because they go back and correct their mistakes whereas religion could be one big lie passed and dated over time.

SIDETOPIC:
What I don't personally understand is why most feel such indignation regarding the abuses committed by faiths, but would do nothing if they saw a homeless person dying in the streets or heard their neighbours scream bloody murder.

Next time post this on December 24-25. Or better yet spam this song in April/May when the great deciever known as Jesus was really born.

>>285
It is not contradictory. You are assuming that forgiving also means forgetting. Of course we forgive; we forgive them for the transgressions against us and hope they see their error of their ways. But we do not forget what they have done and allowing them to come back will lead to more problems. There is a ban appeals process so it is not necessarily a permaban anyways.

Say you have an friend who everytime he borrows your car he damages it in some way. He doesn't mean to do it but it happens. Does forgiving him for damaging your car mean you have to allow him to borrow your car again? NO! You forgive the fact that he has damaged your car but you do not forget the fact the he continually damages your car.

OP still...

From the standpoint of someone who has been banned, your behavior as admins/mods is indistinguishable from those who do not forgive.

I *do* have a friend, who damaged my car *once*. I forgave him, and allowed him to drive my car again. I posted on this site exactly once before I was banned. It's possible that someone else in my apt building has the same IP and was causing trouble, but the fact that I cannot participate because of your aversion to a little trouble from 4chan means *you're doing it wrong*.

I don't think I'm going to run out of proxies any time soon, but don't worry, I'll stop "ruining it for everyone" by *asking questions* I will leave you guys alone.

If you would focus less on banning people and enforcing the proper topics in your ambiguously named threads, and more on discussing the issues people bring up, you could make something meaningful out of this site.

You have already allowed the raiders to win by making it so that even a subset people who are here for legitimate discussion cannot participate.

>>288
how big is your apartment? That seems likely given how popular *chan is..

>>3
yes, Good exists, therefore God exists.
logical.

>>253

If you want to spell things incorrectly, take it to /fyad/
Incorrect spelling is even more of a deterrent to reading your posts than a big wall of text is.
As an admin, it is my responsibility to remove material that makes people not want to visit this site.
Misspellings in text are like sour notes in a song: they ruin the experience.
If you want to ruin people's experience, take it to /fyad/
I never banned you, and I didn't delete your posts because you disagree with me. I deleted them because they ruin threads with walls of typos. If you continue to make my job harder, I will have to ban you, because you haven't contributed anything yet that hasn't needed to be removed.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, just speaking my opinion.

I believe religion was made part for the ability to blame.
"My crops are bad, I must pray for a bountiful crop"

"My crops are good, god answered my prayers!"

"My crops are failing, it was my sins..I must repent"

With religion you get answers to things you do not know. The obvious example:

Q:Where did we come from?
A:God

Then the others;

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>269

/r/ the same motivation but with manmade objects for the pictures. Computers, clocks, anything engineered, not discovered (ie no mathematical discoveries like the Mandelbrot fractal or Wolfram's rule 30).

>>252

Being atheist is SO cool. ake out of nothing what do Christians MUST believe and think their beliefs are stupid. I wish I were you...

>>260

Oh, it's not difficult. Just drop the fairytale crutch in your life and embrace your freedom.

>>262
But should I lie to myself prtending Christians MUST be a bunch of creationists and mormons only? Even if Pope says it's not true? Man, it's much more simple for to make yuorself believe in God, Who ay exist than у to ake myself believe in siething totally idiotic.