Matthew Le God

That is not arrogance. It is asking for you to show me my mistake so if I'm wrong I can learn from it. I want to beleive as many true things and as few false things as possible. So I am more than open to change my mind if you provide a good reason for me to do so. So far you haven't however.

I've stated he @Turkish is on a wind up numerous times throughout this thread. He knows what he is doing. Sadly @egg and @whelk aren't it seems.

They were questions... not claims! 🙄 Can you not comprehend?

1) Are you not aware of the first line of the Bible is... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you saying Genesis is bullshit then? 2) Are you denying that is true? I didn't say every religious person does it, just some. https://nypost.com/2018/03/26/parents-found-guilty-in-prayer-healing-death-of-2-year-old-girl/ or this... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sick-seven-year-old-boy-dies-seth-johnson-plymouth-minnesota-parents-pray-instead-call-911-ambulance-a7512461.html Or numerous others! 🙄 3) Again, I didn't say every religious person prayed for themselves but are you really denying no-one prays for themselves? 4) You continue to state I've said things I haven't said. So it is not me with the misunderstandings... look closer to home for that.

You case being... you are on a wind up and make claims about what I've said that aren't based on what I've actually said?

Wrong? About what because you like others in this thread continue to mis-represent what I've said. I'll say it again... I have not said there is no God. I have said that there is no credible evidence to believe in a God. Belief should be withheld until the burden of proof of a claim has been met.

That is circular nonsense. What is the 'absolute knowledge' based on? Using an old book to justify the same old book is circular and an irrational mess. You need external verification!

We are using pre-Marquess of Queensberry rules!

1) Your first sentence I agree with. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So the rational thing to do is to withhold belief until there is evidence. 2) Your second point is a little flawed as people's beleif impact their actions and their actions impact other people and wider society. 3) 'You're not God' - what is the purpose of stating this? No, I'm not a God. Why is that relevent? You have yet to shown your assumption God exists is a valid one.

A lot of accusations there. Some you keep making without any justificaiton. So let's try to get some...! 1) Wrong about what for example? 2) Which questions have I ignored? 3) What is wrong with not being able answer a question? 4) What is wrong with answering a question with a question? Sometimes questions aren't structurally sound and require clarification through questioning 5) What reasoning of mine is flawed? 6) What have misunderstood and how should I be understanding it?

1) What reaction are you suggesting would happen? 2) Do you think every Muslim would react in the same way?

What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence! Same for God, Loch Ness monster, Yetti, fairies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monster etc etc.

You are starting from the assumption that there is creation by an entity. Why have you done that? Are you going to start using the deeply flawed watchmaker argument?

Like Hojbjerg he only has 1 year left on his contract.

It may be profit, it may be of total value. But they will get a FIFA solidarity payment for his development.

Park

Have you been tested for that cough? Six in one post sounds persistent!

Aren't jokes supposed to be funny? Which was my point with that tweet.

Turkish pretending to be itk

Sky's transfer centre have jumped the gun... https://www.skysports.com/transfer-centre

Sky's transfer centre have jumped the gun... https://www.skysports.com/transfer-centre