GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
mvh65v7h6f78jojjuu.jpg
 
I'm just going to put this right here.



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