My God is Jesus Christ. Now and Forever
Can we talk about the Tooth Fairy for a minute?
@Godisreal1, what makes you believe this?
Please debate. Driving by and throwing a line at us every few days isn’t doing so.
1 Like
i actully have a life so i cnt sit here and debate. I go though many different websites to preach Gods word. I eventually get banned and find a new one.
How about instead of wasting time worrying about people online, you go down the street and help the homeless guy instead maybe. Then again that would be doing what the Bible says to do……
2 Likes
Then say okay bye now.
No you don’t have a life, you gave it all to your jesus christ. Stop lying.
3 Likes
Hahahah seriously? Why? Do you think there is anyone you might find online who has not heard your “good news” message?
You are not accomplishing what your inflated self-image has you believing you are.
Why aren’t you demonstrating what you claim to be true by showing love, compassion, empathy, support, etc., rather than assuming you have what others need to hear to save them from the hell your god created?
As @SatanicMechanic asked
Your blathering horseshit is about as effective as shouting at clouds…(wait, where have I heard that before?) So please, PLEASE, shut the fuck up with the preaching. We’ve all heard it before, so if you don’t mind, just go away unless you have something to contribute besides your mental refuse.
.
.
Edit (every day is trash day)
3 Likes
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
Then it was pretty fucking stupid to come to a debate forum, at least have the decency not to peddle your superstitious snake oil then.
Hopefully the mods can speed this one along for you.
No-no-no! Wait-wait-wait! Not yet! I just got here and haven’t had a chance to play yet! Awwww, mannnnnn… I NEVER get to have any fun!.. (pouting)… 
2 Likes
Quitcherbitchin, he’s not banned. 
2 Likes
Sounds like a really fulfilling life as well. 
4 Likes
Oh, cool. However, after thinking about it a bit, I realized that playing with @Godisreal1 really isn’t all that fun anyway. Kinda like playing with a dead fish, actually. No response or reaction, and your fingers end up smelling all stinky. Hmmmm… 
… Oddly enough, that also sounds like a date I once had in high school.
4 Likes
Uh, yeah, and that was after you agreed that my sister was off limits…
.
.
Edit (hands-on training)
1 Like
Look, in my defense, SHE asked ME if I wanted to learn how to read Braille. Then she shows up with a bunch of bumpy paper taped all over her body. How could I possibly pass up that lesson? I mean, I could have gone blind at any moment back then… (for reasons I’d rather not mention here).
(Edited for self-gratification.)
1 Like
Well, you do make a good argument. I mean, you know, if she hadn’t been my sister and all…
(Yeah I worried about the going blind thing too)
.
.
Edit (don’t think about Elvis)
1 Like
Praise God! By the sexy body of Christ we are redeemed!!!
We’ve ALL BEEN THERE! Am I right 
?
This assertion remains in the same epistemological limbo as many of the assertions contained in your favourite mythology.
If this is the case, why did you post in an arena of discouse LABELLED “DEBATE ROOM”??? The ENTIRE PURPOSE OF WHICH is to provide an arena for substantive debate of pressing issues?
Quite simply, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Or, in this case, the steel foundry with several active blast furnaces.
Let me correct you here, because this is so obviously necessary.
What you are actually doing, is peddling blind assertions from a pre-scientific mythology, scribbled by Bronze Age nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and who thought genetics was controlled by coloured sticks. Along with, of course, whatever feeble ex recto apologetic fabrications you mistakenly think will prop up those assertions, and provide an ersatz for genuine evidential support thereof. We know this because we have seen this so frequently from your ilk in the past, along with a number of other lurid sequelae of the aetiology of mythology fanboyism, none of which you are advised to exhibit here.
You almost certainly thought to yourself before gatecrashing this site, that you were going to come here and, to use the relevant vernacular, "stick it to the stupid atheists™ ". You obviously thought that you were going to bring here adularescent gems of ineffable wisdom that were going to blow everyone away, and rack up a million brownie points for you among your fellow mythology fanboys, because you would be able to point to a nice new batch of converts. Instead, you came here brandishing the usual collapsed intellectual soufflés we see so often from your ilk, the usual collection of canards and feculent dreck that we’ve seen before - and destroyed before - so often that we recognise the odour thereof in our sleep. None of you ever bring anything original to the table, you all bring the same tired old apologetic faeces we’ve fed into the composting machinery time and time again.
Quite simply, mythology fanboys such as yourself, have had over five thousand years to provide support for your various assertions about your various species of cartoon magic man in the sky, and none of you have ever had anything better to offer than “my mythology says so”. Until you realise this persistent failure of your ilk, and address said failure with substance, you will continue to be pointed and laughed at wherever you go, by those of us who paid attention in class and acquired genuine, substantive knowledge.
Furthermore, many of the regulars here are aware of another of those embarrassing facts you and your ilk hope no one will notice - namely, that your blatantly Pharisaic posturing is precisely that. The real reason so many of you gatecrash sites like this, is so that you can brag about your exploits to your fellow mythology fanboys, and tell them all what a good little bot for your magc man you’ve been. While of course failing to direct them to the thread in question, so that the multiple demolitions of your dreck remain shielded from those same fellow mythology fanboys. Either that, or you run back to your fellow mythology fanboys waving your “I’m being persecuted” flag with extra vigour, when your manifest nonsense is deservedly fed into the shredder.
And at this juncture, let me introduce you to the real nature of debate.
Which, when conducted properly and with rigour, consists of testing assertions to destruction. The assertions that fail said test are discarded, except of course for pedagogical purposes - indeed, one of the features of properly conducted classes in any subject, is the presentation of past errors and the reasons why they are errors. The assertions that pass said tests, and survive the attempts to destroy them, become our evidentially supported postulates, and by doing so, become proper additions to our body of knowledge.
It’s at this point that I have to tell you, that you have your work cut out to a monumental extent, if you want your cosy, smug, complacent attachment to your favourite mythology to be something other than a source of amusement. First, because the two methods currently regarded to be reliable as a means of destroying the bad assertions, and preserving the good ones, are [1] error-free deduction within a properly constructed formal axiomatic system (see: pure mathematics and its various subdivisions), or [2] correspondence with observational data (see: all the physical sciences).
Unfortunately for you, many of the assertions in your favourite pre-scientific mythology are unable to be tested by either of these means (and worse still, all too frequently deliberately constructed to avoid said means of testing).
As a corollary, if you want to claim that you have an alternative means of testing assertions, in the same reliable manner as the aforementioned means, then you have a huge task ahead of you. First, you need to describe your alternative methodology in detail. Second, you have to demonstrate, through relevant examples, that your methodology actually works, and for this, you need to test it on assertions of known provenance, and demonstrate that it reliably sorts them into the true and the false. Third, you have to demonstrate that your alternative methodology is applicable to the assertions contained in your favourite mythology, that are not amenable to the usual tests, and fourth, you have to demonstrate that your methodology does indeed reliably inform us of the truth-value thereof.
Until you have all four steps above in place, you have nothing to offer.
Our experience is that the ban hammer is dropped, due to egregious violation of rules that the poster signed up to upon joining forums such as this. But reading the small print is an exercise in dilgence we never see emanating from mythology fanboys. Just as we never see them exert genuine intellectual diligence in their posting.
My advice to you is simple. READ this post (and several others thoughtfully provided by the regulars here), slowly if need be, until you have learned the concepts contained therein (several of which I have handily made explicit for you above, in plain English), then apply those concepts to your own conduct of discourse. Yes, this is hard work, but those of us who paid attention in class didn’t leave those classes with sparkling grades, without exerting relevant diligent effort.
And with that, I bid you adieu.
3 Likes