Reply #185: PERFECT [View All]

[Evoman]

Yes, you get it. An atheist would use that inconsistency as evidence. However, my friend, your error was in thinking that evidence IS THE ONLY evidence that the judge/atheists accepts. In fact, we atheists have bundles of evidence, things like the fact we aren't made out of clay, that prayers aren't answered, the fact that religion has literally been wrong about almost EVERYTHING that we have found out scientifically.

Now then, I had no problems with your play. You completely mischaracterized the atheist by implying that inconsistency is the only evidence but it doesn't bother me. I just responded with my own play (which, except for the stoning part which was just for comedic/dramatic effect, is a lot more accurate). After that, you start tearing my play apart and insist that I am mischaracterizing the theists. Well, my man, it appears that you are indeed a hypocrite. I, however, am not, because I am fully aware my play is inflammatory! Lol.

You have the atheist losing and looking like an intolerant blowhard. Instead of the judge going to the videotape of that light-less corner, like any judge (atheist or otherwise) would, you end it like you did. So I will say this, "After all, you need something outrageoous and inflammatory, like a one-dimensional, idiot bigot atheist, in order to have your characters win the argument-not the argument about the traffic light, which you don't care about, but the argument that atheists base their "beliefs" on scant evidence."

What if I had made the atheist judge theist.

Hindu: The light was red.

Methodist: The light was green.

Methodist Judge: Hindu, fuck off. The light was green.

HAHA thats even better.

Boo yah