Matthew Le God

So... Ouiji boards = bullshit Old books describing walking on water and resurrections = top evidence and conclusive proof

But an old book describing miracles and resurrections is acceptable evidence?

Ouiji boards are a commercial game invented in the 1890s to make money out of the gullible. People make a fortune out of the gullible...! (so do churches)

That was not really personal, I said Ouija boards are bullshit.

Egg is not a child so that isn't really relevant. Believing in Ouija boards as an adult deserves questioning.

🙄 Really? Are you seriously suggesting ouija boards are something other than utter bullshit? Leprechauns? Ghosts? Walking on water? Loch Ness Monster? Turning water into wine? Fairies? Is there anything you won't beleive?

It would be horrific. Like a celestial North Korea having to worship someone for eternity against your will. At least you can die and leave North Korea.

Because some people in this thread are kinda having a discussion. You are just here and popping up with the occasional insult irrelevant to the subject matter.

Neither you or he have explained what he thinks he is free from.

One other or more? Positions?

Petty insult again... well done! You would be a credit to any debating society!

You can't make comparisons between two things if you only know what one of them is! 🙄

Utter nonsense 1) In order to formulate what a test should consist of you need to know what you are testing for 2) We don't live in a religious totalitarian state, so I do have the right to question him if I want to

As we don't know what Raging Bull is saying he believes he is free from you can't make comparisons. Even if we did know it is unlikely to be comparable to love so is a complete non sequitur.

Enlighten us then

So a random opinion based on nothing? That is helpful to the discussion!

Until we know what he is claiming to be free from a test cannot be devised.

1) Please try to not resort to petty insults 2) Yes, and I have an idea where you are trying to go with this and it is flawed

Explain why it is asinine? Because it really isn't.

At no point have I said he doesn't believe he is free from something. I've said... we don't know what he things he is free from and as we don't know what it is we can't determine if he actually is free from it or just delusional.

So you opted for the petty insult rather than a rebuttal to the point you quoted!

We still need to know what he thinks he is free from. Perhaps he is delusional?

Because he is a wind-up merchant who likes to repeat the same fundamentally flawed arguments despite being rebutted with facts as you do, but unlike you he possibly doesn't believe everything he says?

The religious like to take things away from logic and towards irrationality... because that is how they attempt to justify their unfounded beliefs.