An irefutable argument

I notice that sir think a lot thought that ray comfort and his banana argument was a parody.Clearly not. Next, sir think alot thought that john locust isnt a parody. Clearly they were wrong. didnt sir think a lot even notice that 'john locust' sounds remarkably similar to 'john loftus'? Finally, he thinks im a parody however I can verify that im not.

So if sir think a lot thinks that someone is a parody then they are wrong, and if they think that someone isnt a parody then they are also wrong. In other words the truth is always the opposite of what sir think a lot thinks.

Now can you see where im going? Get ready to be amazed. Sir think a lot believes that jebus wasnt a parody. Sir think a lot is always wrong. Therefore Jebus was a parody.

Ray Comfort debunked

I was reminded of ray comforts banana argument and realised that it backfires. The origional argument is as follows:

1.Bananas are easy to eat
2.therefore his sky daddy made them

But we can actually turn the tables around:

1. cakes dont grow on trees
2. if your skydaddy existed why did they make bananas easy to east but make cakes difficult to make
3.therefore cakes would grow on trees if xianity were true
4.therefore your skydaddy doesnt exist

Isnt it odd how xians will look at all thie things that look designed and use it as evidence for their sky daddy however will ignore all the obvious things like the lack of cake trees that point away from design.

Is your skydaddy everywhere

Now xians claim that their sky daddy is everywhere. Well if they are everywhere then how come there is room for anything else? You cant have 2 things occupying the same space (thats basic science)