The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community

Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF

Forum Rules
& FAQ


Username

Password


Create a New Account

 
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index

Question of the Day! by kickstart2006-11-19 12:26:49
  Prolly the fact that... by breezeblock 2003-07-11 01:21:08
There was more bulls**t in the bible than you could shake a telegraph pole at. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and could not take seriously a book so full of contradictions, mistakes and exaggerations. I became an athiest. I was quite happy being an athiest for 20 years when NOLAWitch accidentally pointed me at a pagan website. Now i'm not an athiest.
[ Reply ]
    umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 01:32:43
      ummm... by breezeblock2003-07-11 01:33:13
      Contradictions by Control2006-11-19 12:55:59
      OK, graeme, a quick suggestion. by slayer2003-07-11 01:42:44
        OK by graeme2003-07-11 01:46:37
          Well I won't be around for another 16 hours or so. by slayer2003-07-11 01:51:07
            That's slayer as I know him by Control2003-07-11 01:54:14
              Sorry, it's really not intentional. by slayer2003-07-11 02:00:53
                Wasn't meant as negative critique by Control2003-07-11 02:06:01
        One more quick suggestion. by slayer2003-07-11 02:10:24
          re Naruki by graeme2003-07-11 04:26:55
        suggestion: by SuaveRedSalami2003-07-11 04:21:47
          *chuckle* by Naruki2003-07-11 06:37:13
          argh! by graeme2003-07-11 07:08:58
          I know the defintion. by slayer2003-07-11 07:10:35
            that's called "figuratively" :) by niwikki2003-07-11 11:53:35
              Well, he WAS told to look it up. by Naruki2003-07-11 12:41:42
      Absurdities and other BS by Control2006-11-19 12:55:59
      It is by mirage2003-07-11 02:01:42
      Interestingly enough... by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 02:55:38
        Probably should move this one level up by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 03:13:26
          ... by graeme2003-07-11 04:49:29
            Sorry about that by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:24:23
              No prob! by graeme2003-07-11 07:36:01
                Also something to consider by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:42:45
                  True (n/t) by graeme2003-07-11 08:12:12
          ... also ... by graeme2003-07-11 05:13:01
            Don't put yourself down by Control2003-07-11 05:18:22
        Thanks for that by graeme2003-07-11 04:43:28
        Small question by catharsis2003-07-11 05:40:59
          Ah, but you see ... by Beorn2003-07-11 06:35:16
            Hrm. by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 08:44:06
              You did it first. by Beorn2003-07-11 08:52:49
                But I stated that I was generalizing by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 09:10:00
                  Generalizing WHAT? by Naruki2003-07-11 10:22:46
                  You also said "you". by Beorn2003-07-11 10:46:49
                    My apologies by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:41:50
          I shall attempt ... by graeme2003-07-11 06:55:51
          Let me see if I can make an analogy by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:36:51
            How can you be sure? by Control2003-07-11 07:44:43
              Why shouldn't I be sure? by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 07:58:20
                Circular argumentation by Control2003-07-11 09:17:46
                  But they don't by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 09:21:58
                    My response to that is to be found ... by Beorn2006-11-19 12:55:59
                      Different questions by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:38:33
                        depends by mirage2003-07-11 13:08:52
                          Key phrase, as I see it by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 13:20:00
                            If they by mirage2003-07-11 13:27:51
                            Well, I know there is definitive proof. by Beorn2003-07-11 15:05:53
                              An even better argument... by catharsis2003-07-11 15:22:33
                                umm ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:06:43
                                This by mirage2006-11-19 12:55:59
                                ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:46:58
                              HAhahahaha by Ston2003-07-11 15:36:38
                                Yes, I have faith in science. by Beorn2003-07-11 18:23:03
                              just for fun... by niwikki2003-07-11 16:41:16
                                nah by mirage2003-07-11 19:00:36
                                Why am I even bothering to refute that nonsense? by Beorn2003-07-11 19:47:58
                                so ... by graeme2003-07-11 22:12:23
                                No answer by mirage2003-07-11 23:19:25
                                Exactly (n/t) by graeme2003-07-11 23:49:15
                                However, by mirage2003-07-11 23:56:02
                        But you seem to believe ... by Beorn2003-07-11 14:51:57
                          Archaeologists? by graeme2003-07-11 22:21:23
                            archaeology vs anthropology by niwikki2003-07-11 23:03:01
                              Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:40:26
                                No, because by mirage2003-07-11 23:46:24
                                Actually ... by graeme2003-07-11 23:58:29
                    You are wrong, there. by Naruki2003-07-11 12:39:30
                      Still by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:45:49
                        I haven't satisfactorily had Baron Munchausen by Naruki2003-07-11 14:41:18
            But God is RESPONSIBLE for the confusion! by Naruki2003-07-11 10:30:42
              Warning: infinite recursive loop! (n/t) by NOLAWitch2003-07-11 10:43:07
            if men are flawed by niwikki2003-07-11 12:02:58
              I agree with part of that by Buffy_Fett2003-07-11 12:33:32

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)