"If I was an atheist.."

Eurosausage Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - As the title is a quotation, the title should read... "If I was [sic] an atheist." or "If I was an atheist. [sic]"

imnoadvertiser1 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - @collins1188 Lol, just because the implications of a theory are good doesn't make it correct. You have chosen the theory that 'sounds' better, rather than the one that follows what the majority of the evidence says is correct (that there is no God). The way of a coward...

collins1188 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - @ imnoadvertiser1 HAHAHAHA!!! IDIOT! *smacks hand to forehead* WOW! one of the DUMBEST posts on YouTube. "You have chosen the theory that 'sounds' better, rather than the one that follows what the majority of the EVIDENCE says is correct." So you BELIEVE that there is evidence to suggest the non-existence of something, let alone God. Well... you have just committed the fallacy you accused me of. There is no such thing as evidence of the non-existence of something.

collins1188 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - So my comment got 8 thumbs down because I had a dissenting opinion from Tf00t and his audience. That is just wonderful isn't it? The tf00t audience supports the silencing of dissenting opinion as PROVEN through EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE on this comment board. You all are a bunch of hypocrites. Congratulations!

imnoadvertiser1 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - By evidence, I meant lack of which that supported God's existence. The fact that there is LACK OF evidence can be used AS evidence against the theory of God's existence. It was CLEAR what I meant, if there was any grammatical mistake in there at all, it is irrelevant. What I said could be easily understood by someone who knew how to speak English. Your post was pointless. I have committed no such fallacy that I have accused you of.

imnoadvertiser1 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - Besies, all you did was UNNECESSARILY point out some perceived mistake in my grammar or language rather than respond to my point. You dont look big or clever for attempting to belittle me like you obviously believe.

tehvolume Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - That's both true and untrue. Certainly we don't start with belief in God when we are born, however, there is strong evidence that human's have natural tendencies to seek super natural agencies. Look into Hyper-active agency detection. I wish I could find that link about how humans can extend theory of mind

collins1188 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - "It was CLEAR what I meant, if there was any grammatical mistake in there at all, it is irrelevant." What are you talking about? No one said anything about your grammer. "What I said could be easily understood by someone who knew how to speak English." I did understand what you said retard. However, what you said and what you MEANT to say are two completely different things. Here is a suggestion. Learn how to formulate your thoughts accurately before posting comments.

collins1188 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - "The fact that there is LACK OF evidence can be used AS evidence against the theory of God's existence." 1) There is evidence... it is simply a matter of whether or not you believe it to be acceptable. 2) A lack of evidence NEVER proves ANYTHING. It simply means you have not disproved the null hypothesis. This means, if evidence is the basis for your decisions, you MUST submit to agnosticism. Stop being so ignorant.

collins1188 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - "all you did was UNNECESSAEILY point out some perceived mistake in my grammer or language rather than respond to my point." Two questions: 1) What grammer mistake did I point out? 2) What was your point that I should have responded to? "You dont look big or clever for attempting to belittle me like you obviously believe." You suck! jk

Vanchee09 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - LOL wht a quote! "if you havn't been unicycling throught he foothills of pikes peek, while trying to solve a rubic cube, then what are you waiting for"?! dumb fucks.

Vanchee09 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - Explain to me your point? Is it that the bible proves god, just like my lungs work as unicorn repellant?

Staff7 Says:

Nov 18, 2009 - If you raise a child and do not indoctrinate them with Christianity they will not magically become christian Christianity is dependent on its dogma to survive.

JulianOfViolence Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Here's an analogy I like to use: Say you're walking along the beach, and you see a watch in the sand, would you even think to say "I'll bet over billions and billions of years of sand and water rushing to the surface, this watch was formed"? So how much more ridiculous is it to say that we, who are how much more complicated than a watch, happened by accident? We're in the last days bro. All these people are actually just helping fulfill the bible's prophecies.

bersaba Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species, we've found copious amount of multi-faculty evidence for evolution. Be it DNA, fossils, radiometric dating, geological patterned distribution and so on. Here's an analogy I like to use: If you don't "believe" in evolution, you're a fucking moron. Sure, it's not a good analogy, but it's pretty accurate.

capefear56 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - if theres 1 thing i think man should never discus is religion so stop arguing people

collins1188 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - "Explain to me your point? Is it that the bible proves god, just like my lungs work as unicorn repellant?" You're an idiot. My point is that God does not apply to an infinite progression of events thus He can not be disproved based upon the logic expressed in the video.

vleugelman Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - What's short for Richard?

jannikmt Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - warp speed wood be a lot faster so.. LIER that's only sound

JadedXlm Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - I hope you're not being as serious as you sound.

darkness88ew Says:

Nov 21, 2009 - The argument in relation to a creation and a creator would beg the question "who made the sand, look at how complex it is"...we don't say that because the sand is not complex, god makes sand in your view, not watches. For humans, we would consider an object made by humans to be created. This is the watchmaker argument, and it has been proven logically invalid for a long time. At least choose an argument that isn't hundreds of years old and proven false...

RickySTT Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - So, Thunderf00t, have you done Antarctica? I have (for the 2003 eclipse), although I didn't have the guts to do it on foot.

RickySTT Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Ooh, Paley's discredited watch argument, and sooo close to the sesquicentennial of Darwin's magnum opus, too!

Babs44sun Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - Christian just got owned

siliconweb Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - really confusing! just because there is a mountain this means there is a god? I found dog turd on my lawn therefore the devil exists. Ugh, if only christians created exam papers then life would be so easy. E.g. Why does the universe exist ? answer: God made it. Why do earth quakes exist? answer: God wants it too because we did something wrong. Why was that child molested and killed? answer: God wanted it that way and was testing the childs faith in him. Christianity = Bull$hit!!!!