That depends. What came first, the red or the brown. Who created the sauce? I think based on this question the thread can continue for another 2 weeks. Heinz created the sauce, but who created Heinz? Fish and chips - red sauce Pie and chips - brown sauce
It was democratically elected parliament of sauce but it refused to give up power now it's a dictator
just doing the circles now it seem Nobody has 'disproved' God there is a view that it matter is a theoretical construct If its untrue name just 1 thing, as I have repeatedly asked and you have failed to answer of course it was eye 'lid' you have not 'debunked' the darwin and the evolution of the eye. You posted a link which explains it see wikki for athiesm. clearly explains it and you like wikki name 1 thing that doesnt you have 2
You can't disprove god. http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm I've repeatedly answered you, so that's an obvious lie. I've debunked your claims about it being unfit as a part of evolution. First line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Humans aren't magicked out of thin air by their parents. That's not creation. Sorry. Try again.
cre·a·tion/krēˈāSHən/ Noun: 1.The action or process of bringing something into existence
A) What is the belief you feel atheists have? Atheists are a wide group of people who only share a dis-belief in god. How does that manifest itself into a common belief in something else? B) You say atheists want to get back to attacking religion as if that's unusual - again the definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, so of course they attack religion. C) You say everything has a source/origin/creator which is true but why is it that because you don't know the source or origin of the universe you have to believe that there is some kind of meta-physical creator? For me people who need the crutch of religion to explain the unexplained lack intelligence. The unexplained is a challenge for enquiring minds to search for answers, not a big scarey thing that we should invent fairytales to make go away.
I can see that you're trying to create the longest and most tedious thread of all time. The question is, why?
No, you can't disprove the existence of something that has no consistent definition. When that definition actually claims that the creature is unknowable, it's also unprovable. You didn't read the link either, as usual. I've repeatedly said everything. Nothing is created. There were no errors in it. You just asserted that there were, without giving any examples. You've made the second one up, unfortunately. That's the definition for anti-theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism Precisely. Nothing has ever been proven to have come into existence.
There is no 'lack of intelligence' imo. Most peopel do not have the 'knowledge' to decide either way. It may be difficult to prove but I bet a lot of 'athiests' are so because it is cool and dont know a thing about it. As for the 'fairytales' bit, I find this a ludicrous argument tbh. If you want to look at fairy tales look at the 'scientific' assumptions and leaps of faith to 'fill in the gaps'. I gave one on this thread about the four artists asked to draw a woman based on 4 little fragments of bones. They made it up but people see it as true
For me, true theism is the belief in fairies and dragons, but only pink ones. Can we all just redefine words whenever we feel like it?
well you seem to, to suit your argument didnt you say athiesm has nothing to do with god? or along those lines (as i know you like to be pedantic and semantic)
Not to my limited mind, as it's not my definition, it's that of your faith. If something's unknowable, then by definition we can't know it. It's not semantics and you've yet to show that anything has a creator. The three words that you've used all have different meanings. Completely untrue. Anti-theists? Yes, they are. Well, anti-religion, at least. And no creator has ever been proven, so...
