Pics For Sharing & Debating

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/529259b49e8abbce1154db234f694c5eb46d849_r.jpg

No one and nothing "proves" the existence of God in the manner you seek it [INSERT: i.e. the "scientific method"].
No right minded christian would assert as such.

There is no such being as a 'right minded theist', you're not right minded if you believe in such things.

(I) The first and second part of your sentences are not a logical rhetorical tautology based on the original statements to which they refer.

Me: No right-minded Christian would believe you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method.

You (1): No such thing as a right-minded theist.

You (2): You're not right minded if you believe such things.

The term "believe such things" in the proof of your tautology refers back to the "belief" asserted in my original statement that "you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method". Thus, the rhetorical logic of your second statement is that "You're not right-minded if you believe you can prove the existence of God through the scientific method." A statement that:
(1) is applicable to the entire population;
(2) is consistent with my original statement as Christianity is merely a subset of all the population;
(3) a statement with which I am in full agreement; and
(4) irrelevant to and unsupportive of the blanket assertion that theists cannot be "right minded" [i.e. (1) A not B, if A= C; (2) A not B; (3) If C, then not B. Where A=Theists, B=right minded, and C= belief that God can be proven by the scientific method. Thus, (1) is consistent with (3) and vice versa but neither is relevant to the assertion made in (2)]

(II) However, if (as I believe was your intent) your tautology was intended to assert and support the assertion that anyone who believes in God is not in their right mind, then we clearly disagree on the meaning of the term "right" mind.

From all that you have ever said, it appears to me that you assert that only those who believe as you do can be in their right mind .

On the other hand, to me, and in the light of the current scientific presumption that the Universe is infinite, anyone asserting [I]with certainty that the infinite can be fully defined is asserting an irrational position. [i.e. (1) an infinite universe exists; and (2) the infinite universe can be proven finite so as to completely fit within a comprensible definition].

http://favim.com/orig/201105/03/Favim.com-32191.jpg

http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/935477_289805954488260_1407128731_n.jpg

http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/motivationalPosters/atheism_motivational_poster_9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/HYYxZlf.jpg

Gotta say it seems like religion, especially Christianity, is more hatted here than the Cowboys.

Anyways enjoy another derp from the king of derp:

Pat Robertson shrugs off adultery, CBN regrets the misunderstanding – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/17/pat-robertson-shrugs-off-adultery-cbn-regrets-the-misunderstanding/?hpt=hp_t3)

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/529259b49e8abbce1154db234f694c5eb46d849_r.jpg




https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971383_10151440243751275_734180981_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971383_10151440243751275_734180981_n.jpg

Agreed. With so many valid criticisms to be made, the shit these fools pay attention to is nothing more than a distraction. If I were Obama, i'd be rather hoping that the national conversation is centered on an umbrella holding marine rather than Benghazi, AP or the IRS issues.

Political criticism: the ULTIMATE in "can't see the forest for the trees".