The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Hollie]

you YEC'ists

Hollie abandoning the debate.....

Befuddled as usual....

 

[PostmodernProph]

While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

 

[teapartysamurai]

This is how you defeat them.

Actually you have defeated yourself but you lack the intelligence to appreciate your situation.

Yeah, I can appreciate you are reduced to bluffing, because you can't produce evidence and you can't concede the evidence does not exist.

Only person you are bluffing is yourself with your unrealistic belief in the superstition of creationism.

Well WHO has the superstition when you can't produce ONE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE for how life began?

If you can't do that, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE SUPERSTITION.

Let's go through this again people.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began.

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE both groups, Christian and atheists ARE BASING THEIR BELIEF ON FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I am waiting for any of you atheists to prove me wrong.

All I have so far is YOU PROVING ME RIGHT. You are showing your arrogance clearly by sputtering, I'm dumb just because you say so, and you are right, just because you say so.

STILL WAITING FOR EVIDENCE.

Yet, to see it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

you YEC'ists

Hollie abandoning the debate.....

Befuddled as usual....

Insisting you won, without any evidence as usual.

 

[Hollie]

This is how you defeat them.

Actually you have defeated yourself but you lack the intelligence to appreciate your situation.

Yeah, I can appreciate you are reduced to bluffing, because you can't produce evidence and you can't concede the evidence does not exist.

Only person you are bluffing is yourself with your unrealistic belief in the superstition of creationism.

Well WHO has the superstition when you can't produce ONE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE for how life began?

If you can't do that, THEN YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE SUPERSTITION.

Let's go through this again people.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began.

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE both groups, Christian and atheists ARE BASING THEIR BELIEF ON FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I am waiting for any of you atheists to prove me wrong.

All I have so far is YOU PROVING ME RIGHT. You are showing your arrogance clearly by sputtering, I'm dumb just because you say so, and you are right, just because you say so.

STILL WAITING FOR EVIDENCE.

Yet, to see it.

It's already been presented. You should learn to pay attention.

 

[teapartysamurai]

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

 

[Hollie]

you YEC'ists

Hollie abandoning the debate.....

Befuddled as usual....

Insisting you won, without any evidence as usual.

I never insisted that. You should learn to pay attention.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

 

[Hollie]

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

 

[Hollie]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

 

[teapartysamurai]

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

IF THEY ARE FALSE HOODS PROVE THEM TO BE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A) THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

If that is a false hood then produce the evidence for God

B) There is no HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN

If there is hard evidence for how life began PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

C) THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS.

If there is evidence for this, PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

I have YET to have anyone prove those to be wrong.

You just repeating they are wrong, because you say so is the falsehood.

 

[PratchettFan]

While not proven, it at least has evidence to support it.

abiogenesis has evidence to support it?.......lol, no......it does not......lightening has been stricking mud puddles for millions of years......how many of them have been found teeming with new life forms?......
not only does it have no more evidence to support it than ID, it actually has the evidence of those million years of lightning strikes WITHOUT new life as evidence it did NOT work.........

Yes it does. But I understand you don't accept that and I am fine with that.

????.....what evidence?.....the fact that organic chemicals exist?......the fact lightning can strike?.......how about some evidence that if you put the two together life occurs.....oh wait, we have a couple million years of experience showing it hasn't.....

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me. I get you don't accept it, but I do. Until a better explanation comes along, I see it as the most rational explanation. I do not consider ID to be a rational explanation.

 

[Hollie]

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

 

[Hollie]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them true.

IF THEY ARE FALSE HOODS PROVE THEM TO BE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A) THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR GOD.

If that is a false hood then produce the evidence for God

B) There is no HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN

If there is hard evidence for how life began PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

C) THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS.

If there is evidence for this, PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

I have YET to have anyone prove those to be wrong.

You just repeating they are wrong, because you say so is the falsehood.

Does the silly gargantuan text serve a purpose?

 

[teapartysamurai]

in my experience the reason atheists are poor at debate is that they rely too much on the ignorance posted at AthiestsRUs websites........now I realize that many of them quote this rubbish, knowing it is rubbish, but I suspect that a considerable number of them are simply not smart enough to realize how stupid this crap is......

Atheists rely far too much on the idea they are smarter than those who believe in God, simply because they say they are smarter those those who believe in God.

When their own game is turned on them and they are asked to justify their beliefs as they do for those who believe in God, they are found to be no more intelligent or informed as those they look down on.

That's the fun. Watching them twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit what's obvious to everyone else.

 

[PratchettFan]

Look people, I'll say it again. If I'm wrong! PROVE IT TO BE SO.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

THEREFORE, whether you belief in God, or you do NOT believe in God, you do so BASED ON FAITH.

Where there is no evidence, there is faith.

Could you define what you mean by "hard evidence"?

 

[teapartysamurai]

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

No sorry it was not.

I've had a lot of sputtering and blathering trying to cover up the obvious, but I have yet to see hard evidence.

Do YOU have hard evidence for how life began?

Let's see it?

Or are you saying you are an atheist because other people tell you to be?

YOU can't produce evidence on your own.

Then your beliefs are based on the faith that what others tell you is true.

 

[Hollie]

in my experience the reason atheists are poor at debate is that they rely too much on the ignorance posted at AthiestsRUs websites........now I realize that many of them quote this rubbish, knowing it is rubbish, but I suspect that a considerable number of them are simply not smart enough to realize how stupid this crap is......

Atheists rely far too much on the idea they are smarter than those who believe in God, simply because they say they are smarter those those who believe in God.

When their own game is turned on them and they are asked to justify their beliefs as they do for those who believe in God, they are found to be no more intelligent or informed as those they look down on.

That's the fun. Watching them twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit what's obvious to everyone else.

What, exactly, is obvious to everyone else?

Who, exactly, has tasked you with defining what is obvious to everyone else?

 

[Hollie]

There is knowledge. There is faith. They are not the same thing. To shout for evidence is not being reasonable, because evidence is physical, objective.

To study the veracity of faith, one has to let go of the objective and study the subjective. Where can thought take us?

A question I can never get far with is, where does thought actually end, and observation begin? Is awareness thought, or is it observation? It seems to me that in matters of spirit, we cannot move to the objective, so we must stay in the world of thought--we cannot get to the physical.

This does not make thought any less factual. In fact, often times evidence without thought is useless.

Okay, that was a lot of double talk, but that was also whining.

Fair? Fair?

You are just saying it's unfair to expect evidence from atheists because atheism is different from religion because well, because you say so.

That's trying to justify a double standard.

I don't care what terms you try to hide under, dogma or no.

It's still just hiding under terms without EVIDENCE.

If you are admitting there is no evidence for atheism then it IS no different than religion. In fact is IS a religion.

And it's unfair to ask for evidence for the basis of atheists beliefs? Why??????'

Because they demand it from Christians?????

How many times have we heard atheists demand people prove the Bible is true. That Noah's Ark happened, the Garden of Eden. OH, that's OKAY.

But turn that on atheists and demand they prove the basis of THEIR BELIEFS, and SUDDENLY THAT'S UNFAIR.

It's complete hypocrisy.

Science does not require belief.

NO, IT REQUIRES EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PRODUCE YOURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'M STILL WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without evidence you have FAITH!!!!!!!!!


A) There is no hard evidence for God

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

That's science people. If you can prove those wrongs do so. Page after page of atheists sputtering and I have YET to see anyone produce evidence that proves those wrong.

Already addressed. Pay attention.

No sorry it was not.

I've had a lot of sputtering and blathering trying to cover up the obvious, but I have yet to see hard evidence.

Do YOU have hard evidence for how life began?

Let's see it?

Or are you saying you are an atheist because other people tell you to be?

YOU can't produce evidence on your own.

Then your beliefs are based on the faith that what others tell you is true.

Your inability to pay attention is of your own making.