jelliedsoup's channel

@Freeees

Shhhhh

@Areyourealythatdumb

Excellent, all required evidence to disprove a god must be very nearly in. Someone can finally tell me what evidence is known, unknown and also assign a % value to it.

Don't worry I have no expectation that you can back up why I'm ignorant of the chance of a god existing...

If someone asked me is "Do i have a coin in my hand?", why would I have to say "Yes" or "No"?

The atheist perspective of agnostics dodge the question strongly implies they think there is sufficient cause to say "no". And if there's sufficient cause, what is it?

@TheAtheistExperience said:

"If you don't see the value of being less illogical, it logically makes sense that you don't get it."

What a stupid thing to say. It's ironic that the dogma of the new atheists consists of owning how logic should be applied/used.

@steverock85

He is a "new atheist". This group tends not to be described as respectful.

He's not agnostic. If you think as you cannot disprove a negative sufficient cause to be agnostic, then you have missed the point of what an agnostic is.

@jelliedsoup

** This should have "I don't know" as opposed to "I don't". Bit of difference.

I'm not an atheist, but she is retarded.

15 minutes in an no points made. Science has nothing to say about morality.

Got a point to fast forward to. There's a lot of drivel in there.

Propaganda war huh? I find that hard to believe, everything Dawkins writes is so scientific. Twat.

@WSCP

At least you admit it.

@sgapplebee

What would I consider proof? That's a good question. I have no idea. As an agnostic I lean strongly a creator being unknowable and not just unknown. The lack of evidence is obvious, as if there was some we wouldn't be discussing this. Something rather than nothing is probably the t...