The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

 

[dblack]

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

Things, things, things, things. Things, things, things, things.....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Now, here we have an atheist who is a hypocrite, pretending not to understand the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, a phony who does not have the integrity to acknowledge the veracity of these things. His is the mockery of an intellectual coward.

 

[Hollie]

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. Simply.

Five Things!!!!

No, wait. Seven Things!!!!

Er... Things!!!!!

I started with five because you guys were not ready for the other two until you understood the first five. Are you still pretending that they aren't true? That should be the only thing that matters. By the way, the arguments to the contrary didn't go so well for your crowd. There can be no doubt you finished that argument the winner. You mean The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.


The Seven Things ™
1. We exist!
2. The cosmological order exists!
3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!
4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!
5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!
6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts #3944, #2599, #2600, #3941.)!
7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

I previously established that epistemological irrationalism, skepticism, antirealism or solipsism are arguably possible, but not pragmatic. Hence, for all those who accept that we exist (#1) and that the universe exists (#2), #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 necessarily follow.

Those are the facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin. The objective facts of human cognition report, you decide. God just might be waiting for you on the other side of that leap of faith. There's plenty of rational and empirical evidence for His existence. Take the leap of faith now or don't. It's your decision, not mine.

All the rest of the things I've talked about go to the apprehensible details of #4. Not everybody can follow that or will even try because they've made up their minds about things they know nothing about or have never thought about.

But what all can and should logically understand, that which is self-evident, regarding #4: to assume that the reality of the construct of God would be anything less than the very highest conceivable standard of being unjustifiably begs the question. From an objective standpoint, finite minds are in no position to rationally presuppose anything less, as such a thing would necessarily be an apriority of a purely subjective standard of belief. An objective standard presupposes nothing less than infinitely unparalleled greatness and, therefore, absolute perfection.

It doesn’t matter that we can't comprehend the totality of that. We can and do apprehend the meaning of a highest conceivable standard of perfection whatever that may entail. In other words, logically, nothing created could be greater than the Creator of all other things, and what is the highest conceivable standard of being in this regard: an eternally and transcendentally self-subsistent, i.e., non-contingent, sentient Being of infinitely absolute perfection!

Earlier it was wrongfully asserted, in my opinion, that the objective standard was not biblical. Well, goody, but even if that were true, that would be the interposition of a purely subjective standard of belief that is not going to wash with any person who recognizes the objectively uncontestable standard that doesn't beg the question. In short, objectively, it's the only standard that leaves the matter open-ended without any conceivable allegation of preconceived bias.
___________________________

Note: Both the Bible and the objectively apparent facts of human cognition strongly recommend that God is a Being of infinite greatness/perfection.

And of course, the Fraudulent Seven Things has repeatedly been exposed as a pointless, viciously circular collection of presumptive claims.


Fraud Alert!


Everyone escapes the Seven Fraudulent Things

The Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.



7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.

 

[Syriusly]

Now, here we have an atheist who is a hypocrite, pretending not to understand the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, a phony who does not have the integrity to acknowledge the veracity of these things. His is the mockery of an intellectual coward.

Monty Python an atheist?

Who knew....

 

[Syriusly]

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

 

[Hollie]

Now, here we have an atheist who is a hypocrite, pretending not to understand the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin, a phony who does not have the integrity to acknowledge the veracity of these things. His is the mockery of an intellectual coward.

Not so. It is you, the fundie zealot who pretends to understand the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin and who does not have the intellectual acuity to separate his religiously inspired fears and superstitions from objective reality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

 

[dblack]

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

Hollie I
dblack = Hollie II
Syriusly = Hollie III

Boorish dimwits.

 

[Hollie]

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

Hollie I
dblack = Hollie II
Syriusly = Hollie III

Boorish dimwits.

Ah. A name caller. That helps your otherwise failed arguments. Really, it does.

Pretty typical for fundie zealots. When your comically pointless claims to magic and supernaturalism have been refuted, you're left with no options.

 

[Hollie]

So you are a lying hypocrite.

You accused me of hypocrisy- prove it.

Okay- here I will quote from it

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.

Show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God?

So far all you have done in this thread is rant about atheists- clearly you have some issue with persons who don't believe in your god- but that doesn't justify lying about me.

Because I am an atheist. And your OP accused me of hypocrisy.

So prove it.

Or expose yourself to be the lying hypocrite that you appear to be.

You can't show me where I have demanded hard evidence for God- you just lied about me.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

And frankly- not a real Christian.

Uh . . . I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn't call you a hypocrite. I never spoken to you before. All I said to you is that your existence and the existence of the cosmological order are the hard evidence for God's existence. That is the evidence.

My apologies- yes- I confused you with the OP- since you responded to my OP- and your response had nothing to do with my post.

No problem. I figured something like that. But I was just pointing out what the evidence is. That's all. That's the evidence the idea of God is premised on, of course: our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. I don't agree with the OP that's there's no evidence, assuming I understand him correctly. But I think the point he's making goes to the idea that some demand evidence other than the only evidence there is, which is, of course, once again, our existence and the existence of the cosmological order. It's as simple as that.

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

"Everybody knows.....".

No. Your simpleton's blanket assessment of "everyone knows...." is false and presumptuous. You have made no rational case for the existence of your polytheistic gawds. Others will claim to have stronger evidence for the existence of their gawds.

Not so. It is you, the fundie zealot who pretends to understand the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin and who does not have the intellectual acuity to separate his religiously inspired fears and superstitions from objective reality.

 

[PostmodernProph]

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.
.

even after Hollie has been demonstrating it for seventy pages?.....

 

[Hollie]

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.
.

even after Hollie has been demonstrating it for seventy pages?.....

And you're still pointless.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all I was not arguing about evidence- I was arguing about the blanket accusation against atheists.

Secondly, your evidence is not evidence- it is your joy and wonder at the world- a wonderful thing- but not evidence of God.

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

Hollie I
dblack = Hollie II
Syriusly = Hollie III

Boorish dimwits.

MD Rawlings= American Ayatollah.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, of course, not all atheists are relativists, so that blanket accusation would certainly have nothing to do with me. I certainly don't believe that all atheists are hypocrites.

Second, the notion that our existence and that of the cosmological order is not the evidence for God's existence is absurd. Of course it is. It is precisely due to the existence of these things that the idea of God exists in your mind, and you necessarily concede that every time you deny there be any actual substance behind the idea. Please, stop with the nonsense. Everybody knows what the evidence for God's existence is.

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

Hollie I
dblack = Hollie II
Syriusly = Hollie III

Boorish dimwits.

MD Rawlings= American Ayatollah.

Yep! Looks like the OP is proven right. There are serious, substantive arguments on this thread, and posts like Syriusly the Seriously Vapid's are all we get from 99% of the atheists.

 

[Hollie]

Whatever gets your rocks off.

Enjoy your imaginary friend.

LOL! You just conceded the idea of God is in your head as a matter of fact due to the very evidence for God's existence you claim is not evidence for God's existence. Do you always go around denying the existence of things that you don't understand? You don't why you're denying the God's existence in the first place or why it should even occur to you to deny the existence of God in the first place. That's weird. Is the idea of God imaginary or were you just pulling on our legs when you denied the existence of the substance behind the idea of God in your mind?

Who doesn't exist again? Did you say God doesn't exist? Did I hear you right? Why, yes I did! But you don't seem to hear yourself or be aware of why you keep saying God doesn't exist. That's weird.

Well, have fun with that "imaginary idea" that keeps popping up in your head without you willing that it do so every time you think about the problems of existence and origin, your know, the idea that you prove to objectively exist in its own right in you mind due to the evidence of your existence and that of the cosmological order every time you deny there be any substance behind it: the idea that does exists in its own right in your mind and everybody else's for some reason, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist, but does exists, but doesn't exist, but does exist, but doesn't exist. Where did it go?

How did I come to exist?

Ah! There it is again! Right there in your mind again, the idea that you did not put there, but something else . . . the evidence you say is not the evidence.

Schizophrenia

Hollie I
dblack = Hollie II
Syriusly = Hollie III

Boorish dimwits.

MD Rawlings= American Ayatollah.

Yep! Looks like the OP is proven right. There are serious, substantive arguments on this thread, and posts like Syriusly the Seriously Vapid's are all we get from 99% of the atheists.

There are serious, substantive arguments put forward. Yours however are not among them.

Your pointless cutting and pasting of goofy photos, your repetitive and tedious fumbling over sentence structure, your obvious self-loathing and your inability to produce a coherent argument means you did nothing but litter the thread with spam.

You're really just a self-loathing, hateful little man with myriad issues.

 

[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.

Mostly civil.

Gave you a little wiggle room...

 

[Newby]

I personally think we need additional rules in this area to stop the trolling, which I've suggested to the mods, 80% of this thread is Hollie calling people stupid and other various names without having one post of any substance. Perhaps if they apply the trolling rules that will keep the ignorant and insipid comments from littering a good thread.