close

Discovered in

Find other sites about

Related Sites

  • Showing 23 of 29
  • Reviews of the site
  • Join StumbleUpon or login to add a review! default avatar

  • Rated by fromo1 on Nov 21, 11:03pm

    Cringe-inducing terrible logic.

  • Rated by Purler on Mar 15 2009, 4:16am

    Initially I thought that this was just sarcasm/satire but after a bit of looking around it seemed obvious that a good deal of "work" went into this. Now this is just silly. I mean silly is the nicest way to put it.

  • Rated by Grays42 on Mar 04 2009, 12:54am

    From the page: "Christianity answers the question of who created God in the very first verse of the very first book, Genesis: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)"NO IT DOESN'T! This is begging the question, and answers nothing about the origin of God, but is simply an exercise in sophistry and a discussion of the existence of time. I can simply point to Dawkins' books and say, "Look over there for some real analysis," as pulling passages from them would easily cut down this theist garbage. I am thumbing this up explicitly for the purpose of exposing more people to it. I have faith that the StumbleUpon community will see through the bullshit logic that this is.

  • Rated by mrrhodu on Feb 10 2009, 11:14pm

    not to bad I suppose, I have seen better.

  • Rated by Palindrome on Dec 14 2008, 6:35pm

    Filled with many truths even for those who will read and then thumb down. Interesting.

  • Rated by 7mondays on Jun 25 2008, 6:28pm

    more apologist delusions. Not a bad read if you want to brush up on everything that is wrong with the creationist world view, but otherwise pretty much a waste of bandwidth.

  • Rated by matchet on Jun 23 2008, 10:27pm

    full of fallacies,like fallacy of begging the question,first prove god,its very easy to say sience have not been able to find an answer to this so it's god....

  • Rated by beastly-rich on May 15 2008, 9:59am

    You will never convert anyone with crap logic. Well, ok retards then.