How To Convert An Atheist To Christianity

[Blake]

Do I really have to explain it to you?

No, you don't.

I'll bet your explanation will be just as ridiculously stupid as your question.

[Blake]

Well, you are obviously still butthurt and angry so when you'd like to learn something about trying to apply logic to an absolute mystery - let me know.

We've all seen your crazy ass pseudo mystic bull .

Nobody anywhere on this board worth a salt has ever agreed with you on it.

Let me know if someone does.

If you'd rather be your same angry name-caller and labeler - carry on.

I'm not angry; it's crystal clear to everyone but you and Avante that it's you that's extremely, extremely angry at a great many posters here on ST.

I also don't care about labels. You're the one that says you care very much, yet you use labels in almost every post.

That's why I label you as an extremely stupid hypocrite.

[silverblk mystix]

We've all seen your crazy ass pseudo mystic bull .

Nobody anywhere on this board worth a salt has ever agreed with you on it.

Let me know if someone does.



I'm not angry; it's crystal clear to everyone but you and Avante that it's you that's extremely, extremely angry at a great many posters here on ST.

I also don't care about labels. You're the one that says you care very much, yet you use labels in almost every post.

That's why I label you as an extremely stupid hypocrite.

Ok- so you don't want to learn anything new - carry on...


My question wasn't for you anyway as any intelligent person can see what it means when you respond to a post with a question.

It means you have a question - FOR THE POSTER you quoted.

You can take your butthurt elsewhere.

[Avante]

No, you don't.

I'll bet your explanation will be just as ridiculously stupid as your question.

It's 1710 can we talk to someone a 500 miles away with a hand held device? No we can't, you see it doesn't exist.

Now think, you can do this.

[Blake]

Ok- so you don't want to learn anything new - carry on...


My question wasn't for you anyway as any intelligent person can see what it means when you respond to a post with a question.

It means you have a question - FOR THE POSTER you quoted.

You can take your butthurt elsewhere.

You're stupid.

[Blake]

It's 1710 can we talk to someone a 500 miles away with a hand held device? No we can't, you see it doesn't exist.

Now think, you can do this.

You're even stupider.

[Avante]

You're even stupider.

You're not thinking little one.

Just because us humans haven't figured something out yet doesn;t mean it doesn't exist.

I know...zoooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[exstatic]

Let them start ing around with the occult and devil worship...they will start calling on god for help in no time. They will find out quick the spirit world does exist...the difference with god is he doesn't manifest himself in such wicked ways.

I was thinking a lobotomy would do the trick.

[exstatic]

Isn't it convenient that science assigns the "burden of proof" on the other side so they never have to prove that a god does in fact exist?

We think he doesn't. Why should WE have to prove anything? He's your construct.

[exstatic]

It's 1710 can we talk to someone a 500 miles away with a hand held device? No we can't, you see it doesn't exist.

Now think, you can do this.

So, God has yet to be invented? That was certainly the case for the cell phone in 1710.

[silverblk mystix]

We think he doesn't. Why should WE have to prove anything? He's your construct.

Not mine. But god/idol worshippers yes....


Still....science tries to act as if there is some kind of conclusion - since there is no evidence otherwise - so they act as if they figured something out.


They really didn't.

[exstatic]

Not mine. But god/idol worshippers yes....


Still....science tries to act as if there is some kind of conclusion - since there is no evidence otherwise - so they act as if they figured something out.


They really didn't.

That is the basis for science: observation and positing from that observation. You're trying to say that a cat should bark. It's not going to. Science will continue to be what it is and has always been. You want it to change what it is, or at least make an exception for the idea of God. It won't.

[silverblk mystix]

That is the basis for science: observation and positing from that observation. You're trying to say that a cat should bark. It's not going to. Science will continue to be what it is and has always been. You want it to change what it is, or at least make an exception for the idea of God. It won't.

I am not trying to ask for change or make an exception for the idea of god. What I am saying is that looking down on the other side is ignorant.

Science is in no way superior to people that have faith or a belief in a god.

Neither side is above the other - but if you read through threads like this - this is exactly what I see - the science side always thinks they know "more" than the other side and it is so far from the truth that it is painful to see.

[Avante]

So, God has yet to be invented? That was certainly the case for the cell phone in 1710.

Ah..no. I'm talking about us humans not yet equipped to understand things. Things we will understand s time goes on. so just because we can't understand the concept of God right now that doesn't mean He doesn't exit. The cell phone was always there we just didn't know it.

[exstatic]

I am not trying to ask for change or make an exception for the idea of god. What I am saying is that looking down on the other side is ignorant.

Science is in no way superior to people that have faith or a belief in a god.

Neither side is above the other - but if you read through threads like this - this is exactly what I see - the science side always thinks they know "more" than the other side and it is so far from the truth that it is painful to see.

A scientist can prove that it two hydrogen molecules bond with one oxygen molecule to form water. He has the intellectual high ground over anyone who believes in God, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[exstatic]

Ah..no. I'm talking about us humans not yet equipped to understand things. Things we will understand s time goes on. so just because we can't understand the concept of God right now that doesn't mean He doesn't exit. The cell phone was always there we just didn't know it.

We understand things we can touch feel and use.

[silverblk mystix]

We understand things we can touch feel and use.

Unless your perceptions are not clear. Then - you can see something through your faulty perceptions and you might as well be blind. Scientists are not immune to having faulty perceptions.

[Avante]

We understand things we can touch feel and use.

Try talking many of the things we see today with scientists just a 100 years ago.

[E20]

Anybody trying to prove that God exists through any means other than their faith and firm conviction and anybody wanting to empirical proof that God exists need to double check there rationale and logic.

[Avante]

Try talking many of the things we see today with scientists just a 100 years ago.

Everything we have today was always there. It's just taken us a long time to find it and what we'll find a 100 years from now is here right now. We just aren't prepared to find it yet.

Now before one of your dumb s (many) show up with more stupidity think about what I'm telling you.

[exstatic]

Unless your perceptions are not clear. Then - you can see something through your faulty perceptions and you might as well be blind. Scientists are not immune to having faulty perceptions.

That's why experiments get repeated over and over. Verification.

[exstatic]

Everything we have today was always there. It's just taken us a long time to find it and what we'll find a 100 years from now id here right now. We just aren't prepared to find it yet.

No it wasn't. No touch, no feel, no use.

[Avante]

No it wasn't. No touch, no feel, no use.

Sure it was we just weren't prepared to discover it.

[Clipper Nation]

Isn't it convenient that science assigns the "burden of proof" on the other side so they never have to prove that a god does in fact exist?

You clearly don't know how science works, tbh.... stick to checking anuses at the county jail, B....

[silverblk mystix]

That's why experiments get repeated over and over. Verification.

Yes, in mechanical things that can be named and inspected and defined,etc...

In things that are mysteries and cannot be defined - science cannot prove or disprove anything - these things are unexplainable to the conceptualizing mind. This is why they are mysteries. They do not fit into a concept.

This is why no scientist or group of scientists have ever been able to prove there is or isn't a god.