XnForums

Here is the debate. Enjoy.

What is a 'Peanut Gallery' ? It sounds great fun.

It's where we discuss the points made by either debater.

Didn't "Peanut Gallery" originate with the "Howdy Doody Show?"

The peanuts were little kids who comprised the audience.

So if we're the peanut gallery........

Who are the debaters?

Clarabelle? Buffalo Bob? Princess Summerfallwinterspring?

I always wanted to be in Howdy's peanut gallery.

Finally......I get to be in a peanut gallery.

About time.

I don't think Woofy has much chance to win this......but I would give him this advice--try to turn the conversation toward what "Joe the Plumber" thinks about God.

Pax!

Logos

Check this out.

Two readers with access to the Ohio voter file say that Joe Wurzelbacher's inluence on this cycle will be limited in one way: He doesn't appear to be registered to vote.

(And yes, the freelance opposition research on Joe began before the debate ended.)

Now, I realize that this has not been varified, but if this is true, and the MSM picks up on it, I honestly think that this may have damaging affects. McCain kept bringing him up, adding a new rule to drinking games. He is a household name now and then we find out he can't even vote.

This is another example of McCain jumping on the gun, not thinking things through. You have Palin, then suspending a campaign, this, and many others. Not looking into things, going with the wind. Whatever he can get a hold of. Could he be, shall I say, "erratic". I believe he is.

Time to roast the peanuts.

Joe said that he doesn't mind people using his name if it gets questions answered. Joe is a smart plumber.

How long is this debate supposed to take? Isn't 24hrs enough time to formulate an answer to debating points?

it has begun.

It has begun!

Oh yes. It is the cheap seats where roasted peanuts are served for refreshments. Typically the shells are cracked open, then the nut is eaten.The empty shells are then dropped on the floor.

If the show is boring or simply to much wasted effort to watch then the audience would scoop up the discarded shells and throw them at the stage, or in this case the 'debaters".

Well, first of all, not all atheists are scientists.

I see your only argument is your belief that He is. You cannot provide evidence by science or mathematics.

But I can tell you how to prove that He does not exist. Simply stop talking about him and wait for him to say anything audibly. If you say your God speaks to you, record his words that we can hear. Offer a live chat with your god. We atheists demand proof other than your imagination.

The bible god is the image on your brain from centuries of the lie being indoctrinated. There are other gods that other people believe in and worship in the same imagination. You therefore have nothing special to brag about. You simply declare that your god is paramount, and relegate all the other gods to a lesser degree of importance.

What differintuates your god from other gods. Let's compare your god to the god Buddah. What's the difference? YOU speak for your god. You make the audible sounds. Stop speaking and your god disappears, he cannot exist without your voice. And your voice is the result of your imagination[image] of how you think your god to be.

You can never prove your god is real outside your own imagination. Trying to discredit science is a useless endeavor, imo.

With such stunning insights as the "wristwatch parts in the coffee can" example......Woofy has scored many points in his first post.

I don't see how Ham can refute this evidence.......unless he can shake the coffee can skillfully enough or long enough for the watch to go back together.

Poor Hammie.......probably shaking the can and weeping in frustration even as I now type these words.

Pax!

Hey Roselyn I thought along the same lines. Whats the point of debating *** existence. The reality of this forum seems to be much more along the lines of which version of *** we are talking about. A better debate would be..." Prove your version is the correct version". Now that would be fun. Go ahead woffie, convince us. Ham since you do not have a god you will have to participate as a moderator.

I know it was not the intent but when Woofie showed the picture of the Sphinx and suggested that sand just blowing across the desert couldn’t have made the stucture by chance, I wanted to jump up and say, “Yes, man made it!”

Then as he was using that illustration to back up the biblical God – I wanted to jump up and say, “Yes, man made it! I understand your point Woofie! It’s all so obvious now!

Which one was arguing for God again?