Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Questions about God, and agnosticism?

TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am agnostic, and my friend is atheist. I am open to believing there is a God, but don't see the point in worshipping something I don't know exists, and can never know exists. I am certain that my actions will justify me in the end if there is a God, and I don't think God would be so cruel as to reject me from heaven (though I honestly don't know if the God WOULD be a just God or a cruel one, assuming he existed).

I have both atheist friends, and religious friends who have consistently rejected by agnosticism, and tried to convert me in a sense, into believing there positions. I would like to quote some of their arguments in this thread, as I know they are the same as many members on this site. I am open to discussion, (or at least with what doesn't overwhelm me) to an extent that I can get a better grip on different arguments.

ATHEISM ARGUMENTS FROM ADAM:

"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

At first I thought my friend was joking here, but after further inquiring, I guess he was completely serious. Here was my response: "First off, the assumption that God is all powerful, is a ludicrous notion in and of itself. How do you know that God is all powerful? How do you know he created anything? Rejecting God because of a creation you think he made, is kind of a silly argument, is it not? How do we know that God just isn't some gatekeeper, passing judgement on souls and granting pass into the place we like to believe is heaven? WE don't know, nor could we know.

"If God exists, why is the world such a bad place?"

First off, this question operates under the assumption that God is a loving God, which again, we don't know. Second off, why wouldn't it be? What could we be expected to learn and overcome if there were no evil in the world? How would we really be tested if someone were to intervene in our lives all the time? Third, maybe the world isn't just a bad place after all. Why would it be? If you are still alive, and have succeeded over any trials you may have been placed with, would you not see that as God granting you pass? My position is that it is simply a make-up of attitude, and philosophy on how we should take the little things that are good that happen in life (I believe Medic0506 said something similar to this in another thread).

If God exists, why has no one seen God?

How do we know God has this ability? To appear unto people? How do we know someone out their hasn't seen him (there are people who claim to have seen God)? How do we know that this would be an action that God would define as beneficial for the human race? There is so many questions that follow this one up, that it is impossible to assume the existence of any certain God, or the un-existence of one.

RELIGOUS ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY

While her arguments are defined strictly from a specific religion, I have decided to only include the ones that are pertaining to that of God.

"The universe is so vast. How do you explain stars, planets, space, everything beyond, without the existence of some omnipotent entity to have created it all?"

That's the thing, though, the unknown. There is so much we don't know in the universe, that is true. We don't know why space exists, we don't know the meaning of it being there. Science can only explain so much. But why would God be a sure fire answer for the unknown any better than science would? Isn't that just assuming the unknown is responsible by something else is unknown? God then, is a self refuting point. How can we know that an entity is responsible for something so vast? There are billions, trillions, even zillions of planets, stars, and galaxies out in the void of space that we know of. We are a spec in existence, a mere atom, compared to the rest of the universe. As far as we know, we are the only form of human life in existence. Why would the entity that is supposedly responsible for all this, care for only humans, and only the life on this planet? What would be the point of creating everything else? Why does God take presence for humans, instead of animals? How does God work? Is God white? Is he Black? What language does he speak? There are so many flaws in the belief of a specific God, that it is un-neccesary to believe in his existence. Most Christians, believe that God like his son, is white male. Why is it so hard to believe in a God of any other race? Are we so arrogant, that we cannot believe that God is not defined by anything specific?

"There are plenty of things in the bible that can be proven. Destroyed cities, Ancient Battles, Historical artefact's, all which have been found by historians. Is it impossible to believe then, that God exists?"

I can't defy evidence that some of the stuff in the bible actually happened. The question is, did it happen the way they said it happen? Did God destroy that city, or did people destroy it? Does the battle zone prove the existence of God, or does it prove that people fought each other under the mis-guided philosophies that brought them separate religions? Do historical artefact's mentioned in the bible really prove without a shadow of a doubt that God existed? And the best question is, do you really believe that God exists, because some of what is written in that book seems to be historically accurate? If so, then you are easily fooled. I could write a book, saying that I am the God of all people, and leave around a bunch of things that seem to prove what I said in this book were true. At this point, after reading, all I would have to do is to appear unto you, in order for you to be fooled into believing that I am God. Actually under this logic, I wouldn't even have to appear unto you because you would automatically believe that I am god.

We can equate God, in a lot of ways, to Santa Clause. As children, we are eager to belief that he exists, because of the mystical way that presents seem to appear under the tree. We are too young and naive to believe that anyone else could have placed them their, so we believe, and we are happy in those beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. The same thing carries over believing in a God. There is many thing we don't know, many questions that we want answered, and we simply can't know the answers to that. Believing in a God is okay if it brings you happiness, if it brings you an answer to questions we do not know. If you feel safe in knowledge, then God is a perfect fit for you. Science, however is not complete either. Not everything in science is known, and there is a sense of unknown in Atheism in that regard as well. There will always be a pursuit to know and understand, thus some people find a safety in that.

But for agnosticism, we find safety in the unknown. I get that there is vast amount of knowledge I don't have. But why is that so scary for some people? Is it not nice to know that potential to learn and grow throughout the course of time will become readily available? In this, I get the opportunity to live and love the earth and my surroundings, and be content with the way things are. Why are we where? Who cares! Where are we going? I don't know, but I am excited to find out when we get there!

We are here for some great miracle, and whether that miracle be science, or God, I am grateful to it, and content with what it's given me.

If anyone has questions to my belief, or doesn't understand a particular belief about my standpoint on agnosticism or God, I invite you to ask questions. Also if you are Agnostic, and believe slightly differently than I do, and wish to inquire about anything, I'd be more than happy to answer all questions. I feel agnosticism, in ways, is the most full proof position to hold, and fell I can answer any questions easily.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 11:43:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay I fixed all the spelling mistakes, but I should have grammar checked that I suppose...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
MilitaryAtheist
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 11:59:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?

Or Apathetic(spelling?)
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 12:00:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 11:59:13 AM, MilitaryAtheist wrote:
Or Apathetic(spelling?)

wut
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 1:49:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?

I think what he's saying is that agnostic is somewhat of a meaningless title. Either you believe or you do not believe. The absence of belief is disbelief, in accordance with the law of excluded middle. While you can claim that you have no knowledge of God's existence (which none of us do) you can't claim that you neither belief nor disbelieve. By default you are disbelieving.

So, when finding a title that's supposed to represent your opinions it's kind of asinine to make your title "I don't know" when the question is "what do you believe".
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:52:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 1:49:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?

I think what he's saying is that agnostic is somewhat of a meaningless title. Either you believe or you do not believe. The absence of belief is disbelief, in accordance with the law of excluded middle. While you can claim that you have no knowledge of God's existence (which none of us do) you can't claim that you neither belief nor disbelieve. By default you are disbelieving.

So, when finding a title that's supposed to represent your opinions it's kind of asinine to make your title "I don't know" when the question is "what do you believe".

Yeah, agnosticism is usually considered a middleground between atheism and theism these days, which is not exactly sure. You are either an atheist or a theist (law of excluded middle). Whether or not you are sure about your beliefs is a different thing alltogether. You don't have to be 100% sure that God does/doesn't exist to make you a theist/atheist.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:53:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:52:38 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 9/18/2012 1:49:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?

I think what he's saying is that agnostic is somewhat of a meaningless title. Either you believe or you do not believe. The absence of belief is disbelief, in accordance with the law of excluded middle. While you can claim that you have no knowledge of God's existence (which none of us do) you can't claim that you neither belief nor disbelieve. By default you are disbelieving.

So, when finding a title that's supposed to represent your opinions it's kind of asinine to make your title "I don't know" when the question is "what do you believe".

Yeah, agnosticism is usually considered a middleground between atheism and theism these days, which is not exactly true. You are either an atheist or a theist (law of excluded middle). Whether or not you are sure about your beliefs is a different thing alltogether. You don't have to be 100% sure that God does/doesn't exist to make you a theist/atheist.

fix'd
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:58:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll just go through them somewhat.

1) "Why God made farts", or the reverse teleological argument.

This works on a very simple premise: God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. As such, a being with these characteristics has no reason to create faulted products (they would not be motivated out of difficulty or lack of skill or lack of product, as they are omnipotent: it would be a contradiction in terms. God would not be motivated out of spite or hatred, as he is omnibenevolent. Or, God would not be motivated out of spite or hatred, as "to know all is to forgive all"), and has humans are created according to the creation myths, God has created humans.

Thus, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being created humans. His creations are without fault. Humans are faulted creatures. This argument goes without saying as an inconsistent triad. Premise 3 is accepted universally by all major theisms (from Christianity to Zoroastrianism): the pessimistic view of human nature is already confirmed. Of course, this is where "why do humans fart" come into play, or another argument that started off sounding idiotic but grew on me: "Why is our waste disposal system so next to our pleasure factory", or "Why is our minuscule hole we need to breathe through the place where food gets thrusted down" are examples.

The existence of such a powerful God in existence is also was it supposed by theists. I don't think much depth needs to be given here.

So the obvious premise left to attack is that his creations are designed with fault. Of course, some examples try to get around this (they are faultless; see Plantinga's Defence), but most work with this route: "His work was without fault, but humans corrupted it". Of course, this is problematic as it supposes humans are corrupt, which creates the inconsistent triad again. So the explanation for humans corruption needs to be addressed. This usually refers to the Burgessian argument "Free will is better than good will". If you sincerely believe that our current will is entirely free, then this argument won't convince you. But if you believe in any form of determinism (our actions are at least in part caused), or humans are designed like arseholes (Schadenfreude, for example) or natural evil exists, or that free will can be intervened upon (and has been), or any combination of the above, then the argument is very convincing against Christianity.

2) Why the world sucks, or the Problem of Evil

Problem of Evil works from the same suppositions to the reverse teleological argument, surprisingly. Firstly, the world and all in it is a result of God's creation, and God exists, and the world is flawed. Most of this has already been stated, but I'll cover responses first:

a) "What if God isn't omnibenevolent?" reply: "Then why call Him God?" In short, if God is an arsehole, almost all religions fall flat on their face. These arguments don't work for, say, Greek Gods, because these things have wildly different characteristics to the actual God. The problem is that God is used as an umbrella term to cover massive number of ideas. If you believe in a God being an arsehole, acting as the world's jester, then the argument isn't too compelling. It's a reasonable question, though."

b) "We are being tested" reply: "Tested for what? The argument itself is very speculative, which doesn't give it much support: it at best makes any argument using this explanation consistent, but not compelling in any way. However, that usually isn't enough as a response. So I'd put this forth: any explanation for a test becomes nonsensically confusing. When one is tested, it is for learning of a result one does not know of. So that implies a lack of omniscience regarding human action at any stage in their life. Of course, this creates more problems. Further, if humans are mostly nurture and not nature, this implies an arbitrary meaninglessness to any of the tests. Finally, if the tests are to prove it to "ourselves", it seems quite foolish. If an omniscient being or computer or anything with that characteristic said "yeah, you're a bad person", then that's more compelling than any 'test'. I mean, people will go into denial, then bargaining, then anger then depression as we know about the human psyche, but that doesn't make it any less compelling.

c) "The world isn't a bad place". I find this the most worrying of all positions. I'll outline the case quickly:

Firstly, the political system as it currently is (not just was, but is) must be the best it can possibly be, no matter who you are or where you are.

Secondly, people starving to death in Africa is not just not bad, but the best possible event. This includes from lack of charity, or natural events leading them unable to be helped with current ability.

Thirdly, major natural disasters are not just not bad, but are the best possible thing that could happen.

The diversity of religious faiths meaning the majority of people alive today won't be saved is not just not bad, but the best possible thing that could happen, and their torment, annihilation, or similar is fantastic (this ignores the possibility that all get into Heaven).

I hope that's clear enough. This is more of a fiat case, though, but it's equally utilitous.

3) "If God exists, why has no-one seen God?"

I never understood this argument. It is philosophically not great, but practically very powerful. I always rejoin it to "If God exists, why has he not revealed himself to me in a compelling format". It's essentially a rehash of the PoE, though, so I'll try to ignore redirections to any extent and say "not my favourite argument, but might be able to changed and redeemed".

That's the Atheist criticism section, from what I gathered, so I'll move on from here and see what has been posted in the 20 minutes of writing this up. That said, I am not trying to say agnosticism is unjustified, or anything similar. Some of these arguments I personally wouldn't run. I'm just spreading some general edification.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 7:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 11:57:30 AM, TUF wrote:
At 9/18/2012 11:50:01 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I don't think there is something as pure "agnosticism", kind of a middleground between believing and not believing in God. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a stance on knowledge, whether or not you can know for sure that something exist.

You are either an atheist or a theist, since there can't be in between. Whether or not you're sure of it doesn't matter at this point.

For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe in God, but I don't and can't know for sure that he exists. So you are either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist :P

That is completely ludicrous, and absurd. In order for me to be a theist, I must believe in a God. I don't. In order to be an atheist, I must believe without a doubt that there is no God. So if I don't believe in either, how can I be one or the other?

That's utterly false.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 2:31:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks stephen hawkins. I find some of your responses elaborate, but they don't all neccesairly seem to make sense (except maybe b on the second argument of adam). I will go into further detail when I am at a laptop. :)
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.

what if a homosexual male farts and a white gooey substance teeming with AIDS comes shooting out?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:38:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.

Women don't fart. They can't keep their mouths closed long enough to build up the required pressure.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 5:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:21:35 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.

what if a homosexual male farts and a white gooey substance teeming with AIDS comes shooting out?

What if farts are another sign to tell us that the hershey highway should only be open for exiting traffic??
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 6:06:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 5:41:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:21:35 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.

what if a homosexual male farts and a white gooey substance teeming with AIDS comes shooting out?

What if farts are another sign to tell us that the hershey highway should only be open for exiting traffic??

The more you fast the less you fart. Farts are here to remind us to be fasting more.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:00:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 6:06:06 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:41:38 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:21:35 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:06:30 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:04:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 5:01:32 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

they stink though.

Those are the funniest ones. That's also a sign that it's time to go #2.

What about if your with a women and she farts, that would be a huge turnoff.

Also your right about the #2 thing.

what if a homosexual male farts and a white gooey substance teeming with AIDS comes shooting out?

What if farts are another sign to tell us that the hershey highway should only be open for exiting traffic??

The more you fast the less you fart. Farts are here to remind us to be fasting more.

That could be.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

Dude I made this exact point!
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 2:05:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 12:56:44 PM, TUF wrote:
At 9/19/2012 4:59:55 PM, medic0506 wrote:
"If God is all powerful, why would he create farts?"

Are you serious?? Unless you're an uptight prude, farts are some of the funniest things in existence. It's a source of humor for all regardless of when and where you were born, your color, language, gender, sexual preference, intelligence level, etc.

Dude I made this exact point!

Farts...the great social equalizer! Hah!