Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, you showed the hopelessness of christian fundamentalism.Once again- 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.
And you can't.
Just a liar
And a hypocrite
And a blemish on the name of all real Christians.
Yes, you are ranting and having a tantrum because you lost.
Yes, you lost because I ALREADY SAID I WAS WILLING TO CONCEDE I COULD BE WRONG YOU WANT HARD EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.
BUT ARE YOU WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT MEANS YOU DENY GOD BASED ON FAITH????????
You can't have it both ways. You either do or don't!
That's why you are reduced to this tantrum, wailing and name calling.
Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
I am surprised your god hasn't struck you with lightning.......oh wait.....
The sad part is he thinks he's helping his side instead of proving my op.
Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
See I told you atheists are arrogant!
Why am I a "False Christian?"
Because I DARED defeat my "betters" the atheists!
Actually, you showed the hopelessness of christian fundamentalism.Yes, you are ranting and having a tantrum because you lost.
Yes, you lost because I ALREADY SAID I WAS WILLING TO CONCEDE I COULD BE WRONG YOU WANT HARD EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.
BUT ARE YOU WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT MEANS YOU DENY GOD BASED ON FAITH????????
You can't have it both ways. You either do or don't!
That's why you are reduced to this tantrum, wailing and name calling.
Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
I am surprised your god hasn't struck you with lightning.......oh wait.....
The sad part is he thinks he's helping his side instead of proving my op.
Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
See I told you atheists are arrogant!
Why am I a "False Christian?"
Because I DARED defeat my "betters" the atheists!
What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.ID'iot creationism is not a theory. It's a religious claim tied to christian fundamentalists.
So actually, it is you who had not produced facts.
Let go of fear and ignorance. You will thank me when you do.
It's not a theory BASED ON WHAT HARD FACT?
You LABELING it, isn't FACT OR EVIDENCE.
Give me the FACTS.
Simply labeling it as religion has no more validity than if I were to say the primordial pool theory is nothing more than "Godless atheism."
Wonderful way to dismiss something based on one's own biases and prejudices but damn lacking in EVIDENCE AND FACT.
Sorry but you can keep repeating that, and I'm sure it will console you, but it won't carry a debate.
No it is YOU that has no argument.
My argument is presented in the op, quite clearly.
A) There is no evidence for God.
B) There is no evidence for how life began.
If you then dismiss Creationism it is based on bias and NOT FACT.
When you can produce fact and not just labels, let me know.
And none of that has anything to do with atheism.
Why why are you here?
.
Um, no you presented a table of what elements are contained in space that could contribute to life.
I replied that that SUGGESTS life could be elsewhere but it isn't HARD EVIDENCE life is elsewhere.
Plus I also pointed out the same chart could SUGGEST the existence of God, since how did those elements get there in the first place?
You are now reduced to Now insisting I accept that table, as if I hadn't already refuted it.
It's not hard evidence.
being unable to even debate and just proclaim you won anyway
Debate what? You don't have a defendable position.Actually, you showed the hopelessness of christian fundamentalism.Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
I am surprised your god hasn't struck you with lightning.......oh wait.....
The sad part is he thinks he's helping his side instead of proving my op.
Liar
Hypocrite
False Christian.
See I told you atheists are arrogant!
Why am I a "False Christian?"
Because I DARED defeat my "betters" the atheists!
Yeah, you guys losing and being reduced to this really shows who's hopeless.
And since you guys are reduced to being unable to even debate and just proclaim you won anyway, who's the fundamental zealots?
What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.It's not a theory BASED ON WHAT HARD FACT?
You LABELING it, isn't FACT OR EVIDENCE.
Give me the FACTS.
Simply labeling it as religion has no more validity than if I were to say the primordial pool theory is nothing more than "Godless atheism."
Wonderful way to dismiss something based on one's own biases and prejudices but damn lacking in EVIDENCE AND FACT.
Sorry but you can keep repeating that, and I'm sure it will console you, but it won't carry a debate.
No it is YOU that has no argument.
My argument is presented in the op, quite clearly.
A) There is no evidence for God.
B) There is no evidence for how life began.
If you then dismiss Creationism it is based on bias and NOT FACT.
When you can produce fact and not just labels, let me know.
And none of that has anything to do with atheism.
Why why are you here?
.
I came because I saw the thread and I thought "how am I as an Atheist going to be attacked this time"?
Once here, I challenged you to prove your attack on me for being an atheist- I challenged you to prove your claim that I am a hypocrite for being an atheist.
You ran from the challenge- you bolted from the challenge.
You had no integrity.
And since you could not prove your assertions, you lied.
And real Christians don't ignore the biblical command not to lie.
And you are a hypocrite for calling others a hypocrite, when you are unwilling to prove your claims.
a liar,
A hypocrite
and a false Christian.
I know real Christians- and you are no Christian.
Um, no you presented a table of what elements are contained in space that could contribute to life.
I replied that that SUGGESTS life could be elsewhere but it isn't HARD EVIDENCE life is elsewhere.
Plus I also pointed out the same chart could SUGGEST the existence of God, since how did those elements get there in the first place?
You are now reduced to Now insisting I accept that table, as if I hadn't already refuted it.
It's not hard evidence.
BZZZT Wrong, I provided hard evidence that the conditions for life included the table of elements and that they can be detected throughout the Milky Way using the science of Spectroscopy.
You then deflected and feebly tried to allege that it might "suggest" the existence of your mythical "creator" which I debunked with the science of Cosmology that establishes that the table of elements are generated within stars. Furthermore I provided the laws of physics for the existence of an eternal universe thereby eliminating the need for any mythical "creator".
That you lack the comprehension to understand these hard facts or are just dishonest and are denying that you were provided with them is irrelevant.
They are in the thread and your disingenuous attempts to deny them only exposes your inherent dishonesty.
ARE YOU WILLING THEN TO CONCEDE YOU BASE YOUR ATHEISM ON FAITH THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST???
Why is it "lying" to ask that?
Um, no you presented a table of what elements are contained in space that could contribute to life.
I replied that that SUGGESTS life could be elsewhere but it isn't HARD EVIDENCE life is elsewhere.
Plus I also pointed out the same chart could SUGGEST the existence of God, since how did those elements get there in the first place?
You are now reduced to Now insisting I accept that table, as if I hadn't already refuted it.
It's not hard evidence.
BZZZT Wrong, I provided hard evidence that the conditions for life included the table of elements and that they can be detected throughout the Milky Way using the science of Spectroscopy.
You then deflected and feebly tried to allege that it might "suggest" the existence of your mythical "creator" which I debunked with the science of Cosmology that establishes that the table of elements are generated within stars. Furthermore I provided the laws of physics for the existence of an eternal universe thereby eliminating the need for any mythical "creator".
That you lack the comprehension to understand these hard facts or are just dishonest and are denying that you were provided with them is irrelevant.
They are in the thread and your disingenuous attempts to deny them only exposes your inherent dishonesty.
You are playing with semantics.
"Conditions" that life COULD exist is not HARD EVIDENCE LIFE EXISTS.
You want to play semantics? I can play the same game.
I could use the same table and say it proves Conditions are right for God to exist!
How? How did those elements get in space in the first place?
You see what I mean? That's playing a theory game, but it is NOT HARD FACT.
Now keep on using your double talk. I'll just keep slicing through it like the BS it is.
ARE YOU WILLING THEN TO CONCEDE YOU BASE YOUR ATHEISM ON FAITH THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST???
Why is it "lying" to ask that?
Because it is a FALSE PREMISE based upon the canard that your God exists.
Your lack of honesty and integrity is revealed in every one of your posts in this thread.
Faith Define Faith at Dictionary.comfaith
[feyth] Spell Syllables
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
evidence
[ev-i-duh ns] Spell Syllables
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
Um, no you presented a table of what elements are contained in space that could contribute to life.
I replied that that SUGGESTS life could be elsewhere but it isn't HARD EVIDENCE life is elsewhere.
Plus I also pointed out the same chart could SUGGEST the existence of God, since how did those elements get there in the first place?
You are now reduced to Now insisting I accept that table, as if I hadn't already refuted it.
It's not hard evidence.
BZZZT Wrong, I provided hard evidence that the conditions for life included the table of elements and that they can be detected throughout the Milky Way using the science of Spectroscopy.
You then deflected and feebly tried to allege that it might "suggest" the existence of your mythical "creator" which I debunked with the science of Cosmology that establishes that the table of elements are generated within stars. Furthermore I provided the laws of physics for the existence of an eternal universe thereby eliminating the need for any mythical "creator".
That you lack the comprehension to understand these hard facts or are just dishonest and are denying that you were provided with them is irrelevant.
They are in the thread and your disingenuous attempts to deny them only exposes your inherent dishonesty.
You are playing with semantics.
"Conditions" that life COULD exist is not HARD EVIDENCE LIFE EXISTS.
You want to play semantics? I can play the same game.
I could use the same table and say it proves Conditions are right for God to exist!
How? How did those elements get in space in the first place?
You see what I mean? That's playing a theory game, but it is NOT HARD FACT.
Now keep on using your double talk. I'll just keep slicing through it like the BS it is.
Just worn out another shovel?
Here's another so you can carry on
You no longer have any credibility so you have nothing to offer.
Thanks for establishing beyond any shadow of doubt that you are not qualified to engage in your own thread.
Have a nice day.
Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.
Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.
Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.
That is the formula, right.
What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.
THEN they have to ADMIT Creationism is just as valid a theory as any of theirs.
I have yet to have an atheist do that.
Their arrogance won't permit them.
HOW DID THOSE ELEMENTS GET THERE IN SPACE????
Did you read the link? Did you comprehend what you read in that link?
The answer is probably no since you lack the cognitive skills necessary.
All of the table of elements are generated within stars. When a star goes nova it spreads those elements throughout the universe. This process has been occurring for billions of years.
And before you go off on your whining rant about the Big Bang the latest science is based upon a cyclical universe with multiple big bangs. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed a cyclical model is the most logical explanation for an eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.
Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.
Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.
Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.
That is the formula, right.
What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.
THEN they have to ADMIT Creationism is just as valid a theory as any of theirs.
I have yet to have an atheist do that.
Their arrogance won't permit them.
Are you arguing that creationism is just as valid as the theory of evolution, or the theory of abiogenesis?
You do know that creationism is virtually unverifiable. The only people that will express confidence in it as a scientific theory are basically YEC and those who take the Bible literally.
Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began
What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.ID'iot creationism is not a theory. It's a religious claim tied to christian fundamentalists.My next guss
Then you are proving it is YOU giving into fear and ignorance, because you HAVE YET TO PRODUCE FACT.
If there is more evidence for one theory than another, then PRODUCE IT.
Otherwise, to dismiss a theory sans evidence, isn't science, it's bias.
So actually, it is you who had not produced facts.
Let go of fear and ignorance. You will thank me when you do.
It's not a theory BASED ON WHAT HARD FACT?
You LABELING it, isn't FACT OR EVIDENCE.
Give me the FACTS.
Simply labeling it as religion has no more validity than if I were to say the primordial pool theory is nothing more than "Godless atheism."
Wonderful way to dismiss something based on one's own biases and prejudices but damn lacking in EVIDENCE AND FACT.
Sorry but you can keep repeating that, and I'm sure it will console you, but it won't carry a debate.
No it is YOU that has no argument.
My argument is presented in the op, quite clearly.
A) There is no evidence for God.
B) There is no evidence for how life began.
If you then dismiss Creationism it is based on bias and NOT FACT.
When you can produce fact and not just labels, let me know.
And none of that has anything to do with atheism.
HOW DID THOSE ELEMENTS GET THERE IN SPACE????
Did you read the link? Did you comprehend what you read in that link?
The answer is probably no since you lack the cognitive skills necessary.
All of the table of elements are generated within stars. When a star goes nova it spreads those elements throughout the universe. This process has been occurring for billions of years.
And before you go off on your whining rant about the Big Bang the latest science is based upon a cyclical universe with multiple big bangs. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed a cyclical model is the most logical explanation for an eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.
You're using too many big words for this thread.
The hypocrisy of the OP is very like the hypocrisy of
Keep that Atheism to Yourself US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
and every other attack on atheism.
They want to believe so bad, they're willing to ignore science, as well as common sense.
That's fine with me but why must they constantly attack those who do put science and common sense ahead of superstition and voodoo?
