Caged Atheist fails

SoytanEnthusiast

Well-known member
images (10).webp
 
Check out this thread for Atheist owns like “can God make a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?” I found it years ago by accident and it still gets a laugh out of me.

Are they actual children?
No one would actually make an argument like this
only children would think that this was THE argument that destroyed religions
 
>Nobody wanted to admit that Sky Daddy just raped Mary. No worries we shall call it a "virgin" birth... like nothing happened... Jesus just popped right outta there.... no sexual intercorse needed. Magic. Blam!
View attachment 4300
Thinking God raped Mary is the most retarded shitskin understanding of the miraculous birth of Jesus I've ever heard
 
Something that atheists say is that because uniform human experience says miracles are not true, because you cannot prove you witnessed a miracle, that miracles cannot happen. Because, science is supposed to be observable. However this reminded me, there's a scientific phenomenon that many scientists believe, and it has never been observed in person. It starts with an e and ends with volution.
 
Something that atheists say is that because uniform human experience says miracles are not true, because you cannot prove you witnessed a miracle, that miracles cannot happen. Because, science is supposed to be observable. However this reminded me, there's a scientific phenomenon that many scientists believe, and it has never been observed in person. It starts with an e and ends with volution.
Does evolution and religion conflict?
 
Something that atheists say is that because uniform human experience says miracles are not true, because you cannot prove you witnessed a miracle, that miracles cannot happen. Because, science is supposed to be observable. However this reminded me, there's a scientific phenomenon that many scientists believe, and it has never been observed in person. It starts with an e and ends with volution.
There's also the usual
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which is just begging the question of what extraordinary is. To say naturalism is a more likely explanation for any given event or ought to be assumed as default until an impossible criteria be met is to beg the question. "Miracles don't happen therefore a historical event which has a logical supernatural explanation and a bad naturalistic explanation should be explained though naturalism because miracles don't happen." You see this quite often when talking about historical events around resurrection and early Christianity.
 
There's also the usual
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" which is just begging the question of what extraordinary is. To say naturalism is a more likely explanation for any given event or ought to be assumed as default until an impossible criteria be met is to beg the question. "Miracles don't happen therefore a historical event which has a logical supernatural explanation and a bad naturalistic explanation should be explained though naturalism because miracles don't happen." You see this quite often when talking about historical events around resurrection and early Christianity.
images (8).webp
 
Back
Top