GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
to call me 'churchy' is really all the proof we need that you aren't really following here, waw.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Actually, that is the argument you are making. If anything, I stated that a large sample of a population, across the entire cutural, geographical, and historical span of the human timeline, reporting their witness to acts of a supreme being, or their faith in a supreme being, or their interactions with a supreme being, is, scientifically speaking, a rather large data set. Since you want to follow that path, unless you have a pretty valid counter to just discount that data set, it can not be ignored as invalid until proven so.
yes, it can. it's a large unreliable data set. those people had no understanding of what they were seeing and we have no evidence that said things weren't just their version of star wars. it can certainly be ignored as invalid because there's nothing to validate it. it's pure speculation, especially since they're all fucking different.
Science doesn't actually disprove god exists. In fact, many scientists have made the argument that science, in fact, goes a long way towards proving that there is something more out there, something that 'could' be along the lines of a supreme being.
I never said science disproves god exists. And what scientists have made that argument?
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,171
37,851
1,823
Houston
There are massive amounts of people in Africa that fully believe that raping a virgin will cure them of aids.


Doesn't make it real though.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,770
23,492
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Actually, that is the argument you are making. If anything, I stated that a large sample of a population, across the entire cutural, geographical, and historical span of the human timeline, reporting their witness to acts of a supreme being, or their faith in a supreme being, or their interactions with a supreme being, is, scientifically speaking, a rather large data set. Since you want to follow that path, unless you have a pretty valid counter to just discount that data set, it can not be ignored as invalid until proven so.

Lets take the court system as a classic example. To jurors, eye witnesses generally carry the largest weight in a court case. However, eye witnesses (as in, PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE) are so unreliable its insane. People will SWEAR they have seen things, on a bible no less, that they clearly couldn't have. So here-say isn't actually a good litmus test.

Science doesn't actually disprove god exists. In fact, many scientists have made the argument that science, in fact, goes a long way towards proving that there is something more out there, something that 'could' be along the lines of a supreme being.

Nothing can disprove anything. To even utter that first sentence shows what little grasp you have on science.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
mvh65v7h6f78jojjuu.jpg
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
453
298
42
I'm just going to put this right here.


And he was elected in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,993
453
298
42
And the Dems are just a joke.

 
Last edited by a moderator: