Matthew Le God

You mean the analogy that is fundamentally flawed? "If I could find 2 people who had never seen money and sat them facing each other, then held a pound coin up between them and asked them if they could see a face, one of them would say no, but that wouldn't mean the face didn't exist. Both interpretations of the coin would be correct." The question was 'can you see a face?' The question was not 'is there a face on this coin?'.

All that does is back up my point. That they have different views on it! How does that help your case?

This is simply not true. For example Protestants and Catholics have different views on purgatory.

Religions and some of their followers claim their scriptures are 100% accurate. They have conflicting views on the afterlife that cannot all be correct. So if one religion was shown to be correct on the afterlife it would show the others are not 100% accurate.

No it is not 'merely opinion'. I already answered this with... If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. If everyone was faced with the strong evidence that one of the old books has got it right, why would anyone believe a different religious book? The fact that it hasn't happened proves no book has stood up-to scrutiny.

Wow... how to start unboxing that! 1) I don't cherry pick parts of Christmas. I just explained to you how pretty much every single aspect of a Christian Christmas is stolen from other cultures. 2) It is incompatible to believe God is 100% kind and loving and yet he endorses genocide, rape and slavery in the Bible. If you cherry pick and decide to ignore those aspects of the character of God then you are creating your own religion and your own God. Because the God of the Bible does endorse those things!

Why would there be schisms about the afterlife if it was proven that one religion was correct about the afterlife? Schisms exist because religion and thousands of Gods are man made.

I didn't evade the question, I answered it... If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens. If everyone was faced with the strong evidence that one of the old books has got it right, why would anyone believe a different religious book? The fact that it hasn't happened proves no book has stood up-to scrutiny.

You are getting confused again, I have not said there is no afterlife. I said no evidence for the claim that there is an afterlife stands up to scrutiny. Those are not the same thing!

It isn't really a judgement if for one of the options you don't exist! Plus how would you know you weren't hallucinating?

Not sure why you find it funny... I just outlined to you why celebration with friends and family and giving presents at that time of year is not Christian... because those traditions pre-date Christianity and the Christians simply absorbed them. As for your point about 'anyone going to church getting to decide that they aren't a supporter of genocide'. The Bible undeniably shows the character of God to be a mass murderer and genocidal. If you go to church and decide that they don't endorse genocide... then they are opposing the character as described in the Bible. He also endorses rape, slavery and numerous other horrible things.

You are moving the goalposts now. I was responding to religious books not standing up-to scrutiny.

I've already addressed this. If there is no afterlife it is impossible to make any judgement... because you won't exist to be able to do any judging!

The undeniable fact that there are billions of interpretations as to what any afterlife is like. If a religious book was able to withstand scrutiny regarding an afterlife there would be no schisms in religion as to what happens after death. Everyone would be faced with the evidence that one of the books has got it right so why believe another book? That clearly is not the case and so there are numerous versions of what happens after death competing with each other.

I've provided rebuttals to this nonsense a number of times. You both decide to ignore them and return to the same flawed nonsense. I'll try again but you will no doubt ignore these and later in this thread return to the same nonsense... 1) Celebrations with family/friends and giving presents at that time of year does not originate in Christianity. Christmas is a mixture of many other older traditions that Christianity stole from older cultures. 2) For me to be celebrating Christmas it would require a religious element... which my day does not. So it is not a celebration of Christmas.

I doubt it took much convincing. They don't appear to be a real company. It looks like a front to something dodgy going on. Brand new football schools aren't able to spend millions sponsoring foreign football teams. They simply would not have the money.

Yet again, for someone who declares this as their avatar... You make a lot of judgements! 1) I don't celebrate his birth. We've been through this numerous times and you aren't able to grasp it. Puzzling why you can't apart from your usual trolling. 2) Do you refute that the character of God as described in the Bible killed millions of people? Not very kind and loving. Certainly not 100% kind and loving. But I suppose genocide must be him 'working in mysterious ways'!

1) Lots of religious people claim there is evidence of an afterlife. So it is not by definition. 2) If there is no afterlife then we won't as you claim "find out soon enough when we die and not before who was right". You can't find out anything if you don't exist. 3) What are you claiming about my 'gotchas' are ignorant and crass? How for example is pointing out a '100% kind and loving God' is in conflict with the Bible describing genocidal maniac actions 'ignorant and crass'?

That is not how evidence works. I have not claimed afterlifes don't exist, I have said there is no credible evidence that it does exist. Those are not the same thing. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim... I didn't make a claim.

They have a monumental task turning their squad into Champions League challengers. They have already wasted hundreds of millions on players and still finished below Hojbjerg's current team in 2019/20.

He was effectively unavailable due to the transfer situation, so was replaced with the 3rd choice central midfielder. Which question do you think I haven't answered?

I'd say this is our best ever away kit... I'm hoping Under Armour use this for next season as a template.

If you are that bothered... you can add me to your ignored users list. https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/ignore/

Romeu starting games this season is irrelevant to him being a back-up. Back-ups start games when the Ward-Prowse and Hojbjerg aren't available. 3rd choice players = back up players. Romeu this season was 3rd choice for the two roles. That does not mean he wouldn't start games.

Witch