Jezuzfreek777 : A Study In Mediocrity

Anthony thinks he knows what atheists think. He is delusional.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• jezuzfreek777
• christians
• fucktards
• too
• stupid

[Godlovesblacksonly]

Bro, your sick... people like you go on a killing spree... I think youre gay and hate blacks

[Crosisborg]

@Godlovesblacksonly Tha shows how unevolved you are.

[grungefuck]

Shit!!I like this guy...I'm subscribing.

[elfmotat]

that was the stupidest shit i've ever read.

[endthedisease]

lol @ underwear gnomes

[theperrenialsmartass]

It's weird how Xtains think you can choose what to believe based on what you find most palatable, it really reveals a lot about how their minds work.

If you threatened a religious person with enough fire and brimstone, you could make them believe that the sky is green or that 1+1 = 3.

[sleazybtd]

@thecosmichippo Were you presenting "exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments" as evidence of the existence of god? If you were, I don't follow you. You made a leap of faith that those things come from god without eliminating other possibilities:

1). Those attributes could have evolved

2) All animals may have those attributes, but exhibit them in ways different from humans

3) God gave them to us

4) The underwear gnomes gave them to us

[thecosmichippo]

@sleazybtd ha .. maybe I was a little too deep for ya. Nevermind ..

Philosophical arguments like underwater gnomes are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

[sleazybtd]

@thecosmichippo Okay, see, touch, taste may be too limiting. I'll take something that is compelling evidence of god which can't be explained by natural reasons.

How does having consciousness, ability to appreciate art, and making moral judgments prove the existence of god? How do you know those things weren't given to us by the underwear gnomes?

[thecosmichippo]

@sleazybtd You can label me whatever you like ~ it makes no difference to the discussion.

-If I'm going to argue semantics? You just took are of that for us ..

-Compelling evidence that you can see or touch .. let's be clear here.

Because the evidence within your own species isn't enough compelling evidence right? We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

- It was not intended to change your mind

[sleazybtd]

@thecosmichippo Well, then if there is no evidence that can convince you of the non-existence of god, then I'll just label you "closed-minded".

If you're going to argue semantics, my definition of "agnostic" is someone who doesn't have the balls to come to a conclusion either way.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no god. But if compelling evidence does show up, I'll be happy to change my position.

Famous atheists changing their minds does nothing to change my mind.

[thecosmichippo]

@sleazybtd The label was only used to establish your actual position, you believe, don't believe, or believe in a possibility. There is nothing more to imply. There is no evidence that could convince me; there is enough evidence of an intelligent designer in our universe and biology, that even known atheists such as Antony Flew and Frank Tipler not only finally recognized the evidence but became proponents of theism soon after.