The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[the_human_being]

"You begin yelling and cursing and berating Him. You tell Him He was stupid to have left a book of fairy tales for you to read. You tell Him he could not have created everything because your scientists claimed it all came from about from nothing. You yell and scream. He speaks.
You cry not as you are led away. You have had your say. You showed Him. They don't need to drag you crying and screaming to the Lake of Fire. You hear the flames crackle. You have no fear. The Lake of Fire doesn't exist either. None of this is real. This is all against known science."

Gee, Human. I think that your contemplating my eternal damnation has given you an orgasm.....

Hey, you take'em where you can get'em.

That's why we refer to atheists as "the Walking Dead".

How Christ like!

You must have met Him?

 

[Hollie]

"You begin yelling and cursing and berating Him. You tell Him He was stupid to have left a book of fairy tales for you to read. You tell Him he could not have created everything because your scientists claimed it all came from about from nothing. You yell and scream. He speaks.
You cry not as you are led away. You have had your say. You showed Him. They don't need to drag you crying and screaming to the Lake of Fire. You hear the flames crackle. You have no fear. The Lake of Fire doesn't exist either. None of this is real. This is all against known science."

Gee, Human. I think that your contemplating my eternal damnation has given you an orgasm.....

Hey, you take'em where you can get'em.

That's why we refer to atheists as "the Walking Dead".

Who's "we"?

Would that be you good christian folk at your Sunday morning hate fest?

Yeah. We're gonna have a weiner roast and you're the guest of honor. I wonder if they'll let the schools out that day. Probably not. The government will take a holiday though. No mail delivery.

You angry, vengeful christian folk - just emulating your angry, vengeful gawds.

 

[PratchettFan]

Evidence has been provided by people better qualified than me.

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true.......better, worse, indifferent.....no one has ever provided anyone with evidence that abiogenesis has ever occurred.....you may be assuming it has been because scientists talk about abiogenesis, but it is all merely conjecture at this point.....

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

 

[Hollie]

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

The difference is....... It obviously did happen........which accounts for life on the planet.........

 

[PratchettFan]

I never said it wasn't conjecture. I have said I see it as the most rational explanation.

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

 

[PostmodernProph]

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

The difference is....... It obviously did happen........which accounts for life on the planet.........

so in your mind the existence of life is evidence of how it came to exist?.....is the existence of loaves of bread on the shelves of your local grocery store evidence that it sprouts there when the lights are turned on in the morning......that's obviously how they came to be, because there they are.....

 

[Hollie]

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

The difference is....... It obviously did happen........which accounts for life on the planet.........

so in your mind the existence of life is evidence of how it came to exist?.....is the existence of loaves of bread on the shelves of your local grocery store evidence that it sprouts there when the lights are turned on in the morning......that's obviously how they came to be, because there they are.....

If you knew.....the first thing......about biology....... or punctuation......you wouldn't be..... such an embarrassment.

 

[Hollie]

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

But you take...... a book of takes and fables....,.,as evidence of....... three gawds.

 

[PratchettFan]

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

 

[the_human_being]

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

The difference is....... It obviously did happen........which accounts for life on the planet.........

Come on now Hollie, at least be a little bit honest: Abiogenesis, as a field of scientific inquiry, is still in its infancy. It is not very far down the road of an accepted theory.

Among other theories. Lots of other theories. ALL THEORIES. SPECULATIONS.

 

[Taz]

I can prove abiogenesis: take a seed. It's not a living thing. Plant it and it grows into a living thing.

 

[the_human_being]

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

 

[the_human_being]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.


Ecc_3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

 

[Justin Davis]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

Just start here and see what Rawlings does to the idiocy of atheism and relativism: Is There One Sound valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God Page 491 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually, I don't have a problem with all atheists, as not all atheists are relativists, which is the real problem in human communication, for relativistic theists are just as moonbat stupid and dishonest as any relativistic atheist.

 

[Justin Davis]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Actually, human being, I don't agree with the idea that reality is about correct theory versus rationality. Whatever is will be what it is in my opinion, and whatever is will be rational. I'm going to ask Rawlings to step in on this abiogenesis thing. He wrote an in-depth article on it for his blog. I had to read it four times before I had a good handle on it. It's hard, cold science, the facts. There's no way abiogenesis is rational or even demonstrable. I hope Rawlings will step in because his expertise on the issue is clear, but here's the link to the article: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Justin Davis]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

beside the point.....you said evidence has been provided......that is what I responded to......you should not say evidence has been provided when no evidence has ever been provided........

It has been. Whether you accept it as such is up to you.

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

if there is evidence, name it.....is it the existence of organic chemicals.....the existence of organic chemicals is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of organic chemicals......do not pretend there is evidence, identify it.....

This has been done. You have already rejected the evidence. I am fine with that and have no need to change your mind. I've looked at it and consider it to be the most rational explanation.

Most rational? Really? That is acceptable to you? I would claim that's packaging, salesmanship, and delivery. The most rational is usually not acceptable in real science. Only the correct theory is acceptable, not the most rational.

There are just too many different theories of the origin of life. One group of scientists promote their theory while another group promote theirs. Let's settle on just one.

Abiogenesis isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis, a very weak hypothesis too. A theory would be something that is held to have been demonstrated. The only reason evolution is regarded to be a theory is because it's the received theory, but abiogenesis is not held to be anything but a hypothesis in science. It's not even close to being a theory.


Criticism of Abiogenesis and Panspermia - What is the origin of life on Earth

Even atheists who understand the situation know this, though this guy irresponsibly uses the word theory . . . at first, but eventually gets to the real truth of the matter: Atheism Proving The Negative Current Theories of Abiogenesis

Even though the author is biased, it's clear that it's just a hypothesis: abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Besides the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands.

The only thing I would caution one to be wary of regarding the author's piece in the Encyclopedia Britannica is that while the falsified spontaneous generation of old and abiogenesis are conceptually distinction, both of them are still the notion that life arose from non-living material. I emphasize that because, as you say, Justin, "the Pasteurian theory that all life is from life stands." Abiogenesis is not a standard scientific theory. For now, it's an hypothesis and nothing more.

abiogenesis biology -- Encyclopedia Britannica