@LogicalAgnostic@darwintojesus I respect your conclusion. I would just say that a conclusion and a proof are not the same thing. Evidence can lead to different reasonable interpretations.
@Robbservations2@darwintojesus When you need a meme to avoid answering the central point, the central point usually remains unanswered, which is convenient.
@Robbservations2@darwintojesus Interesting. Instead of responding to my arguments, you decided to diagnose my psychology. I suppose that's easier than debating the issue.
@Robbservations2@darwintojesus How interesting. You discovered that ancient texts had copies, editions, and textual debates. Welcome to absolutely all of the literature of Antiquity.
@TeensieFreedom@catholicpat How convenient. When a believer does something wrong, it's the fault of religion. When an officially atheist regime does it, atheism is on vacation.
@LogicalAgnostic@darwintojesus Interesting. You've already decided how an omnipotent being should act, and since it doesn't follow your script, you conclude that it doesn't exist. Quite practical.
@jpvanhoy@darwintojesus "Interesting. First you say there's no evidence either for or against. Then you proceed to explain why some supposed evidence is worthless. So, was there no evidence, or was there some that you didn't like?"
@ScottyMcYachty@darwintojesus Curious. First you assume you know how an omniscient being should act, and then you conclude that, since it doesn't follow your plan, it doesn't exist.
@Robbservations2@darwintojesus It seems you're confusing 'there are variants in the manuscripts' with 'nobody knows what the original said'. Experts have been studying precisely those variants for centuries.
@JWaynoze@darwintojesus So juries, historians, and philosophers have been lying for centuries, because many of their conclusions cannot be proven in a laboratory experiment.