I DARE ANY atheists answer my simple Question !!!!

[TheFearmonger]

Q 1) How do you know that God does not exist?


Q 2) How did you come to know that you can't see, touch or feel him at least ?


Q 3) Did you see or touch your logic?


Q 4 ) How do you know your logic exists?

A 1) How do you know your version of an imaginary friend is real? o.0


A 2) What evidence is there for a god?


A 3) ...what???!! I assume that question didn't translate well... but, to what I think you are saying; thoughts are impulses in our brains. We know what they are, and have for a long time.

 

[borrofburi]

Q 3) Did you see or touch your logic?

Q 4 ) How do you know your logic exists?

A 3) ...what???!! I assume that question didn't translate well... but, to what I think you are saying; thoughts are impulses in our brains. We know what they are, and have for a long time.

He's implying logic is real and exists. It's not, it's an abstraction of the mind. I perfectly admit god is an abstraciton of the mind, just as thor, ghosts, faeries, and the flying spaghetti monster are all abstractions of the mind and are in that sense "real"; however that is a far cry from faeries and god(s) being real physical objects like, say, my car (and until I am provided with evidence for either, I shall continue to think they are abstractions of the mind).

 

[darthrender2010]

A 1) How do you know your version of an imaginary friend is real? o.0

He isn't arguing for his god, he's arguing for the creator god which his, and all other gods, are pretty much incarnations of. He doesn't reject other gods as not true, just interpretations.

A 3) ...what???!! I assume that question didn't translate well... but, to what I think you are saying; thoughts are impulses in our brains. We know what they are, and have for a long time.

He's using the argument someone used for not believing in god (seeing, touching, feeling, etc) to try to show that it's unreasonable to use that standard.

Edit: I see I was beaten to this point.

 

[TheFearmonger]

A 1) How do you know your version of an imaginary friend is real? o.0

He isn't arguing for his god, he's arguing for the creator god which his, and all other gods, are pretty much incarnations of. He doesn't reject other gods as not true, just interpretations.

right, forgot his earlier posts. Then, let me reanswer; we see no reason for a god. What purpose does he serve?

A 3) ...what???!! I assume that question didn't translate well... but, to what I think you are saying; thoughts are impulses in our brains. We know what they are, and have for a long time.

He's using the argument someone used for not believing in god (seeing, touching, feeling, etc) to try to show that it's unreasonable to use that standard.

But, why is it? We can see the effects of wind. We can measure brainwaves. We looked at the background radiation created by the big bang. Why is this not a good standard?

 

[nemesiss]

as far as the "debate" has been going, he has yet been able to bring any strong positive evidence while brining alot of (mild, weak and strong) negative evidence. im pretty sure that parts of the arguments he will flat-out ignore, other parts he will dismiss, and perhaps a few he will reflute with shallow arguments... but thats how reality is.
the only thing that you can do is give him the knowledge.
if he can't accept it, that is his fault. you did all you can and you shouldn't feel bad for yourself.
there are some fundamental flaws in his logic which he hasn't been able to detach from, its not your fault he has them.

don't worry i will refute each point you bring ! but anyway i will not reply till the next week because i have exams so enjoy these questions of mine Mr.atheist i hope you accept my gift ( :mrgreen: I hope you answer my questions IF YOU DARE :mrgreen: )


Q 1) How do you know that God does not exist?
Q 2) How did you come to know that you can't see, touch or feel him at least ?
Q 3) Did you see or touch your logic?
Q 4 ) How do you know your logic exists?

ill accept your gift, if you accept mine.
also, good luck with those exams. if you wish you can talk about them with us... but thats better suited for a different topic.
Additionally, i'd like to see you answer your own 4 questions. i am (and others also perhaps) very curious to what your answers are.
well, here are mine:

A1) to be honest no one can say with 100% absolute certainty if he exists or not exist.
but based on the arguments people given that he exists compaired to the arguments (often scientific) against his existance, the conclusion came that he (most likely) doesn't exist, to a certain point that it can be considered close enough to 0.

A2) to my knowledge all that i have seen, touched and/or felt can be explained without the need of a god.

A3) seeing logic, perhaps as a written/drawn skematic yes.
however, that not the problem. there is a bit of faulty logic in that sentence, that you can't make the destinction between hardware and software. ill post information below A4. it would interesting if you can apply the logic behind the concept of software and write down where the difference lies between hardware and software and why you can't touch "information", in this case: "logic".

A4) you can go very philosophic here, to the point "can you proof you (even) exist", even the term "logic" is a difficult one since there are many forms and interpertations of "logic". But the fact that i am able to make distuingstions between different forms of logic and different applications for them, means i have a comprehension of them to which that i can construct a piece of text in english that others can understand about this "logic", which is a form of logic in itself, to which others can reply in a similar fashion using the same logic of the english language so that i can understand their message with the same logic that they applied.
that sentence for some people is difficult to understand and with my understanding and logic of human understanding i can see why people find that sentence (and will find this sentence) difficult to understand, which requires them to read it several times to understand what i wrote, but since of the logic within the sentence they are able to understand the meaning behind the sentence of the message i am bringing accross.

the understanding that there are many forms of logic and that it's much easier to make a point about logic by making certain that we are talking about the same "logic" is a form of logic in itself.
as a conformation i will take the definition placed on wikipedia with the link, so that you can confirm that not only is the definition the same (unedited) version which is placed on wikipedia, but also the same definition you are using.
this act by itself is also a form of logic.

and the seperation of terms being used, from the argument being made to make it easier to understand is also a form of logic, and by the act of applying that logic, i am proving the existance of that same logic at the same time.

---------

Hardware
Hardware is a general term for the physical artifacts of a technology. It may also mean the physical components of a computer system, in the form of computer hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware

Software
Computer software, or just software is a general term used to describe the role that computer programs, procedures and documentation play in a computer system. It's the intangible part of the computer system, meaning it cannot be touched.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software

Logic
Logic, from the Greek λογικός (logikos) is the study of reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activity, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology: how do we know what we know. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

 

[scalyblue]

Q 1) How do you know that God does not exist?
Q 2) How did you come to know that you can't see, touch or feel him at least ?
Q 3) Did you see or touch your logic?
Q 4 ) How do you know your logic exists?

1. I do not know, to say that I did know would be foolish. What I do know is that anything that I have seen attributed to a god can be explained without a god. Given currently available observations and information, there is no absolutely reason to even posit the existence of a god much less come to a conclusion on a matter.
   
   The null hypothesis for the posit "God exists" is "God does not exist." Knowledge can only be advanced by refuting the null hypothesis. There is no demonstrable proof, replicatible tests, or physical evidence that can reliably refute the statement "God does not exist," so that statement is my current standpoint because it is an unrefuted null hypothesis.
   
   
2. I will evoke Asimov to answer this question: "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER." ..as there is insufficient data, the null hypothesis (Lack of existence) stands.
3. Logic is an intangible concept that does not have any greater effect than the organization of human thought. I cannot see it or touch it any more than I can see or touch the dewy decimal system, or mathematics, or a computer algorithm. It does not exist outside of human perception, becuase it is a function of human perception.
   
   This is a fine state for ideas to be in, but not a state for an omniscient, omnipotent diety.
   
   In the end, this question is a red herring: irrelevant to the existence posit for a god, and irrelevant to this debate.
4. Another red herring question, irrelevant. It's also answered in my previous answer anyway. Logic is a method for organizing human thought, it exists as much as the data exists in your computer.

 

[idlesniper]

YAY!! Waza-Minooo44 found time to read my argument and completely miss the point. I feel like a full member now

In responce to his "argument" about life not ever coming from non-life I wrote:

Did the first cow created by God "come from life"?


OK, Waza, pay attention (I know, you've been hearing that a lot)

A picture of differant evolutionary stages of the horse dose NOT answer my question. In fact, it really baffles me to think why you thought it did. So maybe my question wasn't clear, I'll try to be clearer this time.

So God is creating the world and gets to the part where he creates the animals. He says "HEY PRESTO!!!" and the animals are created and they are good (yay!). Now we have a brand new Earth, with a bunch of brand new beasts. These beasts have no parents, because they are the FIRST generation created. (still with me?) Now YOU quoted an old, long-dead, dude who said "life cant come from non-life". Didn't that FIRST generation do just that according to your beliefs?


OK as a supplement....
Im NOT a paleontologist, but i do have a fairly good grasp of evolution as i see it as my duty to at least know a little about what im saying here. For a better (more detailed and correct) explanation, AronRa (on youtube and in this forums) would be the person to contact.

 

[darthrender2010]

He's using the argument someone used for not believing in god (seeing, touching, feeling, etc) to try to show that it's unreasonable to use that standard.

But, why is it? We can see the effects of wind. We can measure brainwaves. We looked at the background radiation created by the big bang. Why is this not a good standard?

:facepalm:

You missed the point.

He was taking something that he believes everyone agrees exists - "rationality" I guess - and applying that standard to it to try and show that to use that standard on everything is irrational.

So, in effect, he was trying to refute an argument against the existence of god by showing something that we believe to be real cannot be measured by that same standard; making the standard void for existence questions.

This is what he was trying to do; the viability of his argument, however, is in question.

 

[Nogre]

My normal state of being is not believing in something. It takes proof for me to believe in it. No god has any legitimate proof behind it, so I don't believe. It's as simple as that.

You missed me, Waza-Minooo44. Silence is compliance so answer this logic or agree I'm right.

You've gone another three pages without answering me. My normal state of being is disbelief, as it should be with anything. Without proof, this position remains. No god has any proof (that's the whole point of faith, right?), so I don't believe. There is your argument.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I can't believe how stupid people are. Oh wait, I have to prove that don't I? Ah f---.

 

[nemesiss]

I can't believe how stupid people are. Oh wait, I have to prove that don't I? Ah f---.

you want proof? howabout the show called "America's funniest home videos"? or the internet name for it "america's stupidest home videos"...

 

[xander70769]

Sorry, i just couldnt be bothered to read all 12 pages at this time. but to address the TC original, and completely juvenile question, i will simply refer him to "occam's razor," or simply, when provided with a claim with no backing evidence, disbelief should be preferred over belief. hence we dont believe in unicorns, leprachauns, santa clause, etc. there is no evidence for christianity, islam, etc. Which is why they are based on faith. when you were a child you had faith that santa existed, until an authoritive figure you trusted sat you down and gave you the bad news. The only probelm is you havent had an authoritive figure you trust sit you down to tell you your doctrine god is a lie as well.

There is no definitive evidence to support that the universe wasnt created by a creator, thus being "god." however, even if I or anyone else were to believe god to be real based on this assumption, there is no indicating evidence whatsoever that this creator is anything like the god described by any common religious doctrine. Gods intentions would be a bigger mystery than the universe itself.

An extra example, just for fun. If you were to find an ant-hill, you could cite it as evidence for the possible existance of ants. However, you could not then go on to know the ants intentions, thoughts, powers, etc.

 

[Symbiosychotic]

I've tended to lurk this site for a while, reading and learning as much as I can about practically anything. I've considered registering before, but have held off given that you guys are much better at conveying these things than I assume myself to be. However, this thread has been too hilarious to pass up the chance on this one.

Seems familiar.

 

[Gnug215]

I've tended to lurk this site for a while, reading and learning as much as I can about practically anything. I've considered registering before, but have held off given that you guys are much better at conveying these things than I assume myself to be. However, this thread has been too hilarious to pass up the chance on this one.

Seems familiar.

Welcome to the boards!

Quite the entrance. This cartoon fits this thread perfectly.

 

[TheAnMish]

Love the cartoon

 

[borrofburi]

Seems familiar.

I'd give you rep if this forum had it.

 

[Miss TacoNinja]

Hehe, silly religious person thinks he's being clever...
I don't know... :facepalm:

 

[Waza-Minooo44]

We won't believe in your god without evidence

God almighty he doesn't need my help to answer to your problem he answer it !

[quran 2 : 6-7]
As to those who reject Faith, it? is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE.
Allah hath set A SEAL ON THEIR HEARTS and on their HEARING, and on their EYES IS A VEIL; great is the penalty they (incur).


I already shown you the Proof but yet you deny as if you didn't see it ! OKAY WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE ???


God Almighty directly mentioned the Arabic word قمر , "moon," 27 times in the Noble Quran. The 28th time was in reference to the crescents. Obviously, the number 27.35, which is almost always rounded to 28 as the articles above clearly show, is still in perfect harmony with the Noble Quran's number of mentions of the moon. Also, the Arabic word قمر , "moon," is mentioned directly and indirectly 28 times in 27 Noble Verses. The 27 Noble Verses are listed below. So no matter how one looks at it, I personally see the 28 and 27 in the Noble Quran to be in perfect harmony with science's 28 and 27.3.

The 27 Noble Verses are: 2:189, 6:77, 6:96, 7:54, 10:5, 12:4, 13:2, 14:33, 16:12, 21:33, 22:18, 25:61, 29:61, 31:29, 35:13, 36:39, 36:40, 39:5, 41:37, 54:1, 55:5, 71:16, 74:32, 75:8, 75:9, 84:18, 91:2.


"AS THE MOON COMPLETES ONE ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH (ABOUT EVERY 28 DAYS), there are two times in each orbit when the earth, moon and and sun are inline with each other and two times when the earth, moon and sun are at right angles."~US-Government Sponsored

now i'm asking how can illiterate man knows about 28 or 27.3 number of times and phases the moon appears in ?????

however when my friend tells me he has a new idea on how the universe works, I demand significantly more evidence. Your claim is massive, you know this, you pride yourself in this; however that necessarily means that the evidence you must produce to substantiate such a claim is also MASSIVE, but the "evidence" you present is trite numerology (which is at best extremely weak evidence compared to the massive claim you are presenting) and teleological arguments that have long been refuted but that you don't understand because you don't understand what the scientific method, at its heart, really does.

I asked you ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT !!! instead of this you are trying to refute my own argument !!! still you haven't show me ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT THAT DISPROVE GOD !!! AND I'M WAITING ..................

you call your self atheist ! and sense you are atheist then prove your self in this form ( league of reason)

your identity become heresy when you don't prove your position :mrgreen:

a?the?ist??[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
-noun
a person who denies the existence of a supreme being .

Thus you are being ineffective here for two primary reasons (there are other secondary reasons like your arrogance, poor grammar, poor style, antagonistic attitude, etc.): you are making a massive claim but providing small evidence, and you don't understand what science fundamentally does. The easiest way to remedy this is to receive training in science, work at a research center for a while, etc. and *then* you will understand what science does, how we know what we know, and what kind of evidence you will have to provide to actually have an effect on us. And then you can understand how to communicate to us, and get us to realize the truth of your god, but right now you don't understand some things and are thus failing to communicate to us.

how do you know your logic exist ?? CAN YOU PROVE IT Scientifically ??

Your "proof" is garnered mainly through taking parts from the many questionable translations of the quran, and then claiming the book as real.

"""Proof"""" then tell me what do you call this ?

"(We) then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be God, the Best of Creators!"
(The Qur'an, 23:14)


The bones of the baby completing its development in the mother's womb are clothed with flesh during one particular stage.

Embryology is the branch of science that studies the development of the embryo in the mother's womb. Until very recently, embryologists assumed that the bones and muscles in an embryo developed at the same time. For this reason, for a long time, some people claimed that these verses conflicted with science. Yet, advanced microscopic research conducted by virtue of new technological developments has revealed that the revelation of the Qur'an is word for word correct.

These remarks at the microscopic level showed that the development inside the mother's womb takes place in just the way it is described in the verses. First, the cartilage tissue of the embryo ossifies. Then muscular cells that are selected from amongst the tissue around the bones come together and wrap around the bones.

This event is described in a scientific publication titled Developing Human in the following words:

"During the seventh week, the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms."~Developing Human

You then go on to ignore evidence of evolution,

well this is your scholar who says that ?

since the sheepherders who wrote the book could count to 19, that proves everything it says.

wow really ! can you count number and that number is DIVISIBLE BY 19 ?? how in the world know about multiplication or even division ?? ONLY 19 ??? WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE ?

You have no argument, and your continued presense is only drawing any potential converts to islam farther away, with your caps locked arguments, non-sequitors, and childish rebuttals.

Ooh really ! the first one is The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy under normal conditions cannot be created ^_^ it just simply transformed from one type of energy to another.The first cause [ the first energy ] cannot be created like? wise the big bang happened but what cause this energy to work ??? if the bigbang happened by it self then the entire universe will collapse !!

Your arguments are not, your rebuttals are not, and you fail in describing how all the scientific evidence can be fit into your narrow view of the world. With this in mind, I feel it is no longer neccesary to argue with you. You will not see reason, you will not act like a civilized person having a discussion, and you continue to trow out the same arguments, without properly addressing the debunks. You and a christian man named Kent hovind would get along rather well, I'm sure. Look him up one day. And now, I must leave, for I have a life. Seeya!

it's really amazing accusing me "I don't have arguments" When i demand him ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT and he failed countless of time but on the contrary thankx ! you are proving to me YOU CAN'T ANSWER IT !!!!


[ Quran 21:18 ]
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and IT KNOCKS OUT ITS BRAIN, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

so you see that there is a contradiction in the argument that someone who can't write, wrote a book.

we got this book by memorization from one generation to another generation till it reach the era of Arabic writing .

the point i was making that with time and gossip a story can be "evolved" into something different.

provide your evidence with examples and proof .

as i read it, you state that at a later time, perhaps after your prophet's death, the qu'ran was written down.

i would recommend to read it . this site it will answer to your problem about who is the author !

http://www.jannah.org/articles/quranwrote.html


but the one who wrote it , it's the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan one of the disciple of Muhammad .

Those Surah are 18 apart, not 19. 27-9=18

It's really amazing thing when the quran speak it !!! because when it speak , speak with TRUTH !!!


Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly. ( Quran 2:15)


I'm asking where you were blind or what ???? I'm assuming you are reading with glasses because if you counting correctly you won't do this stupid mistake .

Count from verse 9 to verse 27 = ??? it's clear in the figure ( and it's numbered for you) any gangster in the street will say 19 . but it's really amazing that you say "18" YOU ARE PROVING WHAT THE QURAN SAY !!! WORD FOR WORD .. YOU ARE BLIND ........

[quran 2 : 6-7]
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; THEY WILL NOT BELIEVE.
Allah hath set A SEAL ON THEIR HEARTS and on their HEARING, and on their EYES IS A VEIL; great is the penalty they (incur).

you atheist you are convincing me you didn't attend Grade 1 i doubted !!! and you are the people who believe in """" science"""

so Calvin J. Hamilton has made a mistake somewhere. If you had bothered to check the dates you would be aware of this. Before you call anyone else a liar, check your facts to see if you are mistaken first.

But still it says here S.T.A.T.I.S.T.I.C.S. !!! weak argument bring something New Mr.Atheist

Halley's Comet Statistics

Perihelion distance: 0.587 AU
Orbital eccentricity: 0.967
Orbital inclination: 162.24,°
Orbital period: 76.0 years
Next perihelion: 2061
Diameter: 16 x 8 x 8 km

Ok, here you are being dishonest. You've left out the other bones in the pelvis. The four bones in the pelvis are the coccyx (4 or 5 fused), the sacrum (4 fused) and two hip bones. The link I gave you listed the sacrum and hip bones with the pelvis, so you must have seen it. If you are counting the coccyx as 4 or 5, then you also have to include the 4 from the sacrum. You're clearly purposefully ignoring data that doesn't agree with you now.

It seems you have deficiency of knowledge !!!! HAHAHAH man you are making FUN of your self in league of reason :lol: :lol:


YOU ARE BLIND ! and you have been mocked TWICE !!!

Allah mocks at them and gives them increase in their wrong-doings to wander blindly. ( Quran 2:15)

Can't you see " : " There are 209 bones in the human body (19 x 11), not 206; the coccyx is usually considered one bone, however it consits of 4 fused bones.


cranial bones (8)
Facial bones: (14)
In the middle ears (6):
In the throat (1):
In the shoulder girdle (4):
In the thorax (27):
In the vertebral column (24):
In the arms (2):
In the forearms (4):
In the hands (54):

In the pelvis (4 or 5):
coccyx (4 or 5 fused)

In the thighs (2):
In the legs (6):
In the feet (52):
---------------------------------
Total = 209 (19*11)

Picking up a rock is not splitting the moon, and the lift off from the moon was at 17:54:00 GMT, not X:54:01 http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11i_Timeline.htm it's at total mission time (GET) 124:22:00.79.

it seems you don't bay attention to the video ! it says


"After about seven hours of rest, the crew were awakened by Houston to prepare for the return flight. Two and a half hours later, at 17:54 UTC, they lifted off in Eagle's ascent stage, carrying 21.5 kilograms of lunar samples with them, to rejoin CMP Michael Collins aboard Columbia in lunar orbit"~Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and by the way what is the difference between "17:54:00 " and "17:54:01" ???? one second ? do you think when Apollo left the moon did n't pass the "1sec" ???

The moment the prophecy was fulfilled is confirmed by the hour of departure of the lunar module, which left the lunar surface at 17:54:1 (Universal Time) or 1:54:1 (EDT) and as you have seen above, verse [54:1] is the verse that deals with the prophecy.

but for the sake of argument .......

visit this site : http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/mathematical_02.html

This is my point. You are ignoring all of the numbers that aren't multiples of 19, and only looking at the numbers that are. ie. 364 days in a year, how many times is the word "Peace" used? etc.

the number 23 and 8 wifes isn't written in the quran ??? i was talking about every 19 in the quran . not the biography of Muhammad.

A 1) How do you know your version of an imaginary friend is real? o.0

design necessitates a designer

The holy quran prove my version is the real version

http://www.missionislam.com/science/book.htm

The Seas not Mingling with One Another

"He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through."
(The Qur'an, 55:19-20)

This property of the seas, that they come together yet do not mingle with one another at all, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension", the waters of neighboring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.(11)

The interesting side to this is that during a period when people had no knowledge of physics, surface tension, or oceanography; this was revealed in the Qur'an.

A 2) What evidence is there for a god?

i already answer it countless of time but you where blind ......



================================================================================

Ooh really THEN answer it ( IF YOU have the guts and the courage to answer it !)

Q) how do you know your logic exists?? PROVE IT SCIENTIFICALLY and illustrate in diagram ! and SHOW ME the pictures ( :mrgreen: ) !

Hehe, silly religious person thinks he's being clever...
I don't know...

if is that what you thing then answer it ! ( if you DARE !)

Q) how do you know your logic exists?? PROVE IT SCIENTIFICALLY and illustrate in diagram ! and SHOW ME the pictures :mrgreen:

 

[5810Singer]

Can't you see " : " There are 209 bones in the human body (19 x 11), not 206; the coccyx is usually considered one bone, however it consits of 4 fused bones.


cranial bones (8)
Facial bones: (14)
In the middle ears (6):
In the throat (1):
In the shoulder girdle (4):
In the thorax (27):
In the vertebral column (24):
In the arms (2):
In the forearms (4):
In the hands (54):

In the pelvis (4 or 5):
coccyx (4 or 5 fused)

In the thighs (2):
In the legs (6):
In the feet (52):
---------------------------------
Total = 209 (19*11)

WRONG!

Get a calculator and add those bones up again......if you allow 4 for the pelvis, and 4 for the coccyx the total comes to 212 bones. If you allow 5 for both of the above then the total's 214. Either way it's not 209.

YOU ARE WRONG! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!




So apparently you can't do simple arithmetic, and yet you think you're qualified to lecture us on wisdom.

I wish you'd take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[nasher168]

I asked you ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT !!! instead of this you are trying to refute my own argument !!! still you haven't show me ONE SINGLE ARGUMENT THAT DISPROVE GOD !!! AND I'M WAITING ..................

you call your self atheist ! and sense you are atheist then prove your self in this form ( league of reason)

your identity become heresy when you don't prove your position

a?the?ist??[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
-noun
a person who denies the existence of a supreme being .

Look, I don't know what YOU would call us, but we call ourselves atheist. We do not deny the existence of a god, but we don't believe it either because there is no evidence.
You are the one making the claim. We think it is unlikely, so we don't believe you. There is no evidence against the existence of a god, but we believe that we shouldn't believe in anything unless there is evidence for it. There is no evidence for the existence of god, and until you show us any, none of us will believe a word you say.