The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[the_human_being]

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

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

I don't know what your job is but there's a very strong possibility that I have been involved in far more "science" than you have.

That very well may be true when it comes to your job, but you haven't shown that you actually know anything about, as you put it: "science" or at least how it works. One doesn't need a science job to educate one's self about science. I suggest you do so.

Well duhhh. Couldn't do my job without knowing how some of it works.

 

[Steven_R]

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.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

Yes, all atheists are unhappy campers.

Hardly. I'm quite content in knowing that I only get one shot at life and when it's done, it's done so I better make it count. I know I won't see loved ones in the afterlife, so I better enjoy them while I can. My actions are my own and I live my life for me and my guiding principle is "don't be a dick", not because I better be good or else, but because I don't want to be a dick. I like learning about how the universe actually functions, even when the implications are unsettling, because I find that knowing is more satisfying than believing in mythology. And there is comfort in knowing that when I die, the physical part of me (e.g. the atoms that make up me) will exist forever and will be recycled for billions of years in untold plants and animals and fungi until the Earth is consumed by an expanding sun.

 

[Hollie]

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.

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

Even if it were true that Christians are ALL happier than ALL atheists, it doesn't mean Christianity is true. A God of love who created an entire Universe just for His chosen people, the saved, and you just happen to be one of them! Sounds like packaging and salesmanship to me.

Whatever the capital "T' Truth of the Universe is may be unpleasant for us humans, and despite how we might feel about it, or try to deny it or to not accept it, we can not escape it. How's that for packaging?

Who drinks their koolaid with a spoonful of sugar? You, who believes you've been saved by the creator of the Universe to live in everlasting happiness, or the atheist who doesn't know what's going to happen to him or herself, all their loved ones, all humankind, all life, and all things but death is inevitable, life may be meaningles and the Universe seems to be without objective purpose? Whose got the shiny packaging?

Yes, all atheists are unhappy campers.

There are times when the best way to devalue an argument is to just let someone do that for themselves.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

I don't know what your job is but there's a very strong possibility that I have been involved in far more "science" than you have.

That very well may be true when it comes to your job, but you haven't shown that you actually know anything about, as you put it: "science" or at least how it works. One doesn't need a science job to educate one's self about science. I suggest you do so.

Well duhhh. Couldn't do my job without knowing how some of it works.

And the word "some" could be used as "not very much" and is important in that statement.

 

[PostmodernProph]

your YEC'ist

demonstrating irrelevance, no reason to read further....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

Huh? That's odd.

Hollie would have to understand the actualities and the conventional standards of logic, science and justified true belief/knowledge, as well as demonstrate that she rightly understands the ideas she harangues by putting her understanding of them into evidence on this forum followed by point-by-point counterarguments, before she could be legitimately frustrated over anything PostmodernProph (PMP), The Human Being (THB) or I would have to say on this thread.
She has never once, not here or anywhere else on this forum, not now or at any other time to my knowledge on this forum, demonstrated an understanding of these things or done such a thing. Ever! Hence, it is she who need not be taken seriously by any of us. Childish insults, sarcasm, straw men, non sequiturs, ignorance, the skepticism of sheer contrariness . . . sans a legitimate argument anywhere in sight: these things are good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh, but are otherwise utterly useless noise.

I have a solid argument on this thread premised on the first principles of human cognition regarding the objective facts of the problems of existence and origin, the metaphysical nature of materialism and the nature of the scientific facts of the prebiotic research in the field abiogenesis. Please review her absurd, utterly irresponsible and incoherent reaction to that!

You write that "there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding."

Oh? In my experience, epistemological relativists engage in that sort of thing, not epistemological absolutists, for the latter begin with the universally self-evident axioms of human cognition and proceed accordingly. Hence, starting from the foundation of absolute objectivity, ground zero, they have no problem accurately understanding the worldviews of others on their own terms without bias and have no problem with accurately stating those views from their premises to their conclusions. On the other hand, relativists (and not all atheists/agnostics are relativists, by the way) simply do not grasp the logical implications and the subsequent ramifications of their very own premises because they are not practiced in the science of sound logic.

The objective absolutist does rightly understand the relativist because he is practiced in the science of sound logic.

Though, of course, semantics can get in the way of understanding and have to be worked out, typically, when the relativist talks about the absolutist's supposed "willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding", the real problem is the relativist's inability or unwillingness to understand what he's claiming to be ultimately true . . . logically.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

My favorite snapshot of Hollie. Caught her in one of her better mood . . . swings.

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

 

[Hollie]

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

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

Huh? That's odd.

Hollie would have to understand the actualities and the conventional standards of logic, science and justified true belief/knowledge, as well as demonstrate that she rightly understands the ideas she harangues by putting her understanding of them into evidence on this forum followed by point-by-point counterarguments, before she could be legitimately frustrated over anything PostmodernProph (PMP), The Human Being (THB) or I would have to say on this thread.
She has never once, not here or anywhere else on this forum, not now or at any other time to my knowledge on this forum, demonstrated an understanding of these things or done such a thing. Ever! Hence, it is she who need not be taken seriously by any of us. Childish insults, sarcasm, straw men, non sequiturs, ignorance, the skepticism of sheer contrariness . . . sans a legitimate argument anywhere in sight: these things are good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh, but are otherwise utterly useless noise.

I have a solid argument on this thread premised on the first principles of human cognition regarding the objective facts of the problems of existence and origin, the metaphysical nature of materialism and the nature of the scientific facts of the prebiotic research in the field abiogenesis. Please review her absurd, utterly irresponsible and incoherent reaction to that!

You write that "there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding."

Oh? In my experience, epistemological relativists engage in that sort of thing, not epistemological absolutists, for the latter begin with the universally self-evident axioms of human cognition and proceed accordingly. Hence, starting from the foundation of absolute objectivity, ground zero, they have no problem accurately understanding the worldviews of others on their own terms without bias and have no problem with accurately stating those views from their premises to their conclusions. On the other hand, relativists (and not all atheists/agnostics are relativists, by the way) simply do not grasp the logical implications and the subsequent ramifications of their very own premises because they are not practiced in the science of sound logic.

The objective absolutist does rightly understand the relativist because he is practiced in the science of sound logic.

Though, of course, semantics can get in the way of understanding and have to be worked out, typically, when the relativist talks about the absolutist's supposed "willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding", the real problem is the relativist's inability or unwillingness to understand what he's claiming to be ultimately true . . . logically.

That is odd. The above is nothing more than your whining via cutting and pasting of similar whining in another thread wherein your rattling was refuted as being contradictory and viciously circular.

 

[Hollie]

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

Well, actually, I'll admit to having a bit of fun at your expense. It doesn't take much to cause you to reassemble and shuffle your standard four paragraphs of run on sentences, twisted "reasoning", such as it is and hilariously inept attempts at making a coherent argument.

 

[PostmodernProph]

lol....I love it when people dodge something by saying "its been done".........no, it hasn't......and you can't get by just pretending it has been........I haven't rejected any evidence of abiogenesis.......everyone knows there is no evidence of abiogenesis, unless you simply consider the existence of life to be evidence it just happened.....

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

you're right......he should have limited it to the atheists who post on this forum.....

If you want to insult me have the courage not to be passive aggressive about it.

what's passive about it.....

 

[Newby]

When your arguments have failed, you're left to snivel and whimper like a petulant child sent to his room for a timeout.

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

 

[the_human_being]

lol....I love it when science ignorant religious zealots put their profound ignorance on display.

Not honest at all. You and all the other atheists simply cannot abide it when you see Christians are not as miserable as you.

All other atheists? All people who aren't convinced that your God, or any other gods, are the one, true God. Every single one of us is miserable? And we're all just envious, or jealous that we aren't convinced like you are and so we just steam in our own anger that Christians are just such a happy, jolly bunch. What kind of statement is this? Not only is it a hasty generalization, but it doesn't even make sense.

you're right......he should have limited it to the atheists who post on this forum.....

If you want to insult me have the courage not to be passive aggressive about it.

what's passive about it.....

Beats me.

 

[the_human_being]

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

The Indians thought her kind to be sacred. They left them alone.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

 

[Hollie]

Of course the most . . . eccentric . . . aspect of Hollie's psychological makeup is her delusion
that her incessant and never very imaginative attacks on the man constitute refutations,
demonstrations of failed arguments. Heck, if Hollie were to ever once demonstrate that she
actually grasped the ideas she argues rages against I'd fall off my chair and concede defeat
just to positively reinforce this step in the right direction toward rational discourse. In the mean-
time, she serves as a cautionary anecdote about how not to think and argue. Besides, she's
always good for giggles and the occasional belly laugh.

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

 

[the_human_being]

It's all packaging and presentation. Whatever tickles their gizzards at a particular point in time.

If that is what you really think, then why even have a serious discussion when you've just written the opposition off as a bunch of children disctracted by something shiny until they see the next shiny thing? You completely invalidate, in your own mind, any argument from the other side no matter its strength. Why even talk to you? You are so uninformed when it comes to science, and you don't want to be informed.

I see now why Hollie gets so frustrated that her posts devolve into angry insults. There's no exchange with someone like you, no communicating, there's just a wall of willful ignorance, mischaracterizations, and purposeful misunderstanding.

I don't know what your job is but there's a very strong possibility that I have been involved in far more "science" than you have.

That very well may be true when it comes to your job, but you haven't shown that you actually know anything about, as you put it: "science" or at least how it works. One doesn't need a science job to educate one's self about science. I suggest you do so.

Well duhhh. Couldn't do my job without knowing how some of it works.

And the word "some" could be used as "not very much" and is important in that statement.

Yes. I can dial the phone by simply applying the law of habit.

 

[Newby]

You poor dear. How sad that you're left to stutter and mumble after your flaccid attempts at furthering a coherent argument have failed.

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

 

[Hollie]

You know, Hollie, I tease you a bit, but what's wrong with just talking with me like we were real folk, you and I, because we are. Why do always talk at theists as if they were things, not real people?

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

I understand your feelings are hurt when your arguments are exposed as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition, but why come whining to me? If your arguments are untenable, why would I give you a pass simply because you claim an exception from the standards of reason and rationality.

 

[Newby]

Because you're not.

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

I understand your feelings are hurt when your arguments are exposed as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition, but why come whining to me? If your arguments are untenable, why would I give you a pass simply because you claim an exception from the standards of reason and rationality.

But that's what seems to go right over your little head, my dear, you have 'exposed' nothing here. You have shown nothing to be 'untenable', and please keep your 'passes' to yourself, I have no need of them. Hollie must live in her own little world where she thinks she has somehow presented sound refutations or arguments here. Amusing!

She's also apparently unable to understand or identify sarcasm when it's presented.

 

[Newby]

'And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.'

Sound familiar?

 

[Hollie]

Well, then, there's your answer, Sir. So there! LOL!

I truly believe she is psychotic and really not worth engaging, you nailed your description of her, she's incapable of coherent discussion.

Oh my. The Jehovah's Witness cabal is assembling.

Oh my, now you've gone and done it, the psychotic atheist has hurt my feelings. lol

You could really learn something from CMM, he uses actual reasoning and discussion and is mostly civil while debating, he has my respect. Your one entire debate skill is limited to the m.o. of labeling and name calling, that's all you ever have. You offer no one a challenge unfortunately.

I understand your feelings are hurt when your arguments are exposed as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition, but why come whining to me? If your arguments are untenable, why would I give you a pass simply because you claim an exception from the standards of reason and rationality.

But that's what seems to go right over your little head, my dear, you have 'exposed' nothing here. You have shown nothing to be 'untenable', and please keep your 'passes' to yourself, I have no need of them. Hollie must live in her own little world where she thinks she has somehow presented sound refutations or arguments here. Amusing!

She's also apparently unable to understand or identify sarcasm when it's presented.

Actually, pumpkin, you're just a whiner. You entered the thread for no purpose other than to whine about your inability to further an argument.

Your bruised ego is of your own making.