Will we ever know with 100% certainty which is more painful between getting kicked in the nuts or giving birth?
It's an interesting question since no one can compare the two as no one can experience both.
Hindus can.
Will we ever know with 100% certainty which is more painful between getting kicked in the nuts or giving birth?
It's an interesting question since no one can compare the two as no one can experience both.
So some of your beliefs are stated by that fact.
I cant see how that impacts on the question of the OP
Seriously, I've answered this about 10 times.
Everything.
Nothing has a creator, in the sense that you're suggesting.
and what sense is that?
No they don't and you haven't demonstrated that they do, you've merely claimed it, repeatedly.
The universe doesn't need a creator.
so a painting can paint itself?
I already have.
You really havent. you posted a link and i have debunked it
And you'd be wrong.
Again.
antitheism is the active opposition to theism
theism is the belief in a deity/god
anti god is active opposition to god or theism
= same thing
You really don't get how this works, do you?
You're the one making the claim, so it's down to you to prove it.
Sound familiar?
I answered your question is all
You don't read them.
The three-eyed monkey proved that.
Yes, people just wouldn't know that they were atheists.
Just get them out and measure lads.
ahem the lord has blessed me
if evolution was survival of the fittest/natural selection
wouldnt those with little dicks have died at birth?
and wouldnt time and evolution meant we all had 12 inchers?

"so the explosion is the creator. although what exploded and who put those there is a fair question" A chemical reaction that may cause an explosion doesn't need a living being to place the chemicals together it can happen naturally.I accept the unexplained, based on what we know though there is a suggestion of a creator. (bearing in mind this isnt a bearded bloke etc)
"so the explosion is the creator. although what exploded and who put those there is a fair question" A chemical reaction that may cause an explosion doesn't need a living being to place the chemicals together it can happen naturally.
I guess that if you believe an explosion could be the creator then you are in effect open to believing that the big bang theory could have created the universe - hence there is no reason to believe in god.
Might explain the lack of blood to your brain.
I cant see how that impacts on the question of the OP
and what sense is that?
so a painting can paint itself?
You really havent. you posted a link and i have debunked it
antitheism is the active opposition to theism
theism is the belief in a deity/god
anti god is active opposition to god or theism
= same thing
I answered your question is all
Ahh did that give you a hard on?
and that was about my typing rather than my reading
plus define creator, it may save time
so the unknowable exists now?
What I am saying in this thread is that something caused the universe to exist, that cause is the creator
Its the God bit we are both having difficulty with imo
I think maybe the image of god is the problem here. As i said to me 'god' just means creator NOT a bloke in a white robe with a big beard ala the current biblical description
What I am saying in this thread is that something caused the universe to exist, that cause is the creator
theories and wikki does not fact make
PNP, you dont half talk a load of pretentious rubbish
as explained I have hidden nothing. The Op was in response to th emany 'slate' religions threads. I asked the question what athiest theories were.
I agree with your point, but me not being to 'prove' what created a creator does not negate that either
Also the evolution argument is almost void, when considering that evolution does not and has never tried to answer the origins of the universe etc
most of current 'womens rights' stuff was introduced by Islam
The right to look like a black letterbox.athiesm in its true form is simple 'no deities'. those on here often are anti god
I know quite a few athiests who could not argue their corner, just do so to be cool
yes and that source and origin will be the 'creator'
Will we ever know with 100% certainty which is more painful between getting kicked in the nuts or giving birth?
It's an interesting question since no one can compare the two as no one can experience both.
so the unknowable exists now?

Viking Eric in jealous rant. You used to be nice and took part in funny yet gentle banter. What happened to you?
ahem the lord has blessed me
if evolution was survival of the fittest/natural selection
wouldnt those with little dicks have died at birth?
and wouldnt time and evolution meant we all had 12 inchers?
I didn't say that it did.
you mentioned my faith, i just want to know the relevance
In the sense that it was magicked up out of nothing, rather than made out of other things that already existed.
existed how?
I didn't suggest that it could.
so it needs a creator?
No, you haven't.
You said that it's wrong without reading it, pointing out points that it already addressed, as you're just repeating crap that you've read on creationist sites.
yes I have. natural selection theory doesnt fit evolution of the eye. That was a seperate theory
Theism is the belief in a god or gods.
You can be against that belief without having any belief in a god, which your phrase suggests.
I said some people imo are anti god. anti theist is the same as antigod imo
No, you didn't.
You made a claim that you couldn't back up.
Again.
read back, i asked , then answered. simple as
No, it wasn't, as you made the same mistake more than once and clearly didn't understand what you were talking about.
what I said 3 eyes instead of 3 eyelids, and then explained when you picked up on it. Ok then?
Creator's the wrong word to use, as I pointed out in my initial comment.
You agreed and then went on to use it repeatedly since.
I disagree and I have explained early in the thread what it signified
What?
What on earth are you on about and how did you get that from what I wrote?
Mayo on chips?
Mayo on chips?
