Me again. If the secular humanistic ad nauseum ad popularum yields ergo the caveat emptor of e plauribus unum, then one must logically conclude that the barney the dinosaurus is the only moral code of erectus fallaticillus. Wouldn't then this imply that the atheistic modus operandi fail under its own premises with respect to the existential and fundamental driving force for species survival? Ergo, this thus proves by a contratio the a fortiori argument of Divinus Realitus which negates the atheistic position and provces a priori the existence of God.
2007-02-15 11:44:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Fascinating. Completely idiotic, of course, but fascinating nonetheless.
2007-02-15 11:53:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
confident. it incredibly is actual. i'd like to coach it. To prepare this empirically, first you will could replace each and all of the leaders of all of the countries with atheists and then take a seat there to ascertain if any religious wars harm out. in the event that they do no longer, then this hypothesis would be supported. whether, it would take continuously to confirm (or prepare) that no religious wars would EVER harm out, so this would be perplexing to behaviour this test in certainty (even with the actuality that i think of the 1st step would be well worth attempting). Theoretically, you may show (no longer prepare) that this hypothesis could be ultimate via right here good judgment. Atheists do no longer belong to or help any religions, consequently if each and all of the worlds leaders have been atheists, differing religious perspectives does no longer be a international difficulty, as a effect no wars would be justified via religious variations (like many at the instant are). there may well be wars over different issues, like land, or politics, or ingredients, yet no longer religious perspectives.
2016-10-02 05:20:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An interesting hypotenuse! Allow me to regurgitate. The principle instrument in the deconstruction of algorithmic underpinnings tends to induce a modicum of overtly cautious capabilities but only expressed as an integer. Therefore it would imply by proxy that an ipso facto pepto bismal would be irrelevant in any and all circumstances! But it still doesn't answer the question of why Britney Spears cut her hair.
2007-02-18 06:33:28 · answer #3 · answered by Nosferatu Needs Lovin' Too 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do realize that you used almost all those phrases incorrectly, right?
But I will not condem you for making fun of stayathomemom. She rubs me the wrong way.
2007-02-15 11:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by Kharm 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Aw, is this what it sounds like to you when people use words you've never seen in the bible?
2007-02-15 11:52:01 · answer #5 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HAhahaha! I'm going to say that to someone just to mess with them.
2007-02-15 11:49:08 · answer #6 · answered by Mrs. Eric Cartman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You did a lot of " LSD" in the 60`s didn`t you ?
2007-02-15 11:50:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No this just proves that you are talking out of your @$$.
2007-02-15 12:18:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not really,, but I dig your vocabulary.
2007-02-15 11:51:46 · answer #9 · answered by landerscott 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my some pretty big words you use there, too bad you use them poorly.
2007-02-15 11:51:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋