Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 83118

The argument of "Which religious text do we believe, Self? Why trust the Bible?" is an invalid argument because even if the Bible was the only holy book in existence, atheists still wouldn't say it was good enough evidence. So it is a dishonest argument.

Self-Mutation, Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board 59 Comments [8/10/2011 8:45:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 79
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
#1321327
The Jamo


8/12/2011 2:53:09 AM

#1321341
Gimpo Pop Eyes

Hear! Hear! I always trust the Bible. Whenever I am sorely troubled about the best way to present justification for my genocidal propositions, I almost always consult that reliable bastion of wickedness, the Holy Bible, particularly the King James Version. Often I need confirmation that I'm taking the correct stance vis-a-vis miserly money hoarding and general acquisitiveness. My first port of call? Why! That glorious espousal of egotistical self-gratification and gleeful self-entitlement, the magnificent Black Book of Death.

8/12/2011 5:09:57 AM

#1321402
Reverend Jeremiah

What an obvious dodge. The existence of multiple religions have always been an evidence of religion and god being man made

8/12/2011 8:23:59 AM

#1321680
moose

Nope. It is not a dishonest question. It is a hypothetical question. You just didnt get that. The reason we ask you which text should we believe is to illustrate to you that your wholly babble has no more validity than any of the others. So if it was indeed the only text out there, it still would have no validity.

Never the less, just for fun. Let's pretend that your wholly babble IS the only text. My next question is: You gospels cant possibly be all correct because they all contain contradictions amongst each other. So.........which of the 3 gospels do you plan on getting rid of? I can't possibly believe in something that contradicts itself. So, you have to eliminate 3 of the gospels before the babble can be taken seriously. And that doesnt even take into account the contradictions between the epistles.....

8/13/2011 9:09:10 AM

#1321693
Punch

Because it wouldn't be. Gee, you don't know the first thing about evidence.

8/13/2011 10:47:55 AM

#1321781


Tu es stupides.

8/13/2011 6:24:50 PM

#1321831
Martine R

This makes no sense. The reason I don't believe it has nothing to do with the number of alternative religious texts. It's because it's a book full of rubbish.

8/14/2011 2:11:51 AM

#1322208
M

There are no holy books. Just books stupid people consider holy.

'Holy' is a word for something that doesn't exist.

8/15/2011 6:02:46 AM

#1461806


HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Did you go to an alternate universe where that was true?

10/23/2012 4:35:42 AM
1 2 3