The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[teapartysamurai]

I do wonder how so many call themselves Christians yet don't live their lives according to the Bible. Personally, it doesn't matter who does or does not believe in God, if you live your life being good, doing good.

What does that have to do with how life began or the double standard in which atheists place themselves in that regard?

 

[teapartysamurai]

TP, I am sure that you have heard this before, but I will tell you again. Us Atheists don't give a rat's ass if you believe that Batman is the son of god. We have no interest in proving anything to you. We tolerate believers with amusement, and then go our own way. We definitely reject the 3,000 to 1,500 year old mythology called the Bible, that believers, for reasons that we do not even care to debate, consider to be the end all and final truth of god and history, etc. I've read more believable stories in Marvel Comics.

Well, that's wonderful. But that's not what I'm talking about. I didn't say how old the Earth was or even bring that up.

You are just changing the subject because you can't refute the op.

I'm bringing up the double standard in which atheism finds itself.

There is no evidence for how life began YET they insist evolution proves there is no God. YET evolution doesn't cover how life began.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.

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.

Then you admit atheism has nothing to do with FACT.

Thus it's a religion, just like Christianity or any other religion.

I thought so.

Once again- you are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

So you are running away and declaring you won anyway.

Figures!

BZZZT Wrong again!

I am pointing out that you lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend why you are drowning in denial.

Your IQ is the equivalent of a Barbie doll so it is a complete and utter waste of time trying to educate someone who refuses to acknowledge scientific knowledge and instead believes in myth and superstition.

The irony is that if it weren't for math and science you wouldn't have this forum to display your ignorance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

The OP has established that she lacks honesty, integrity, education and basic reading comprehension.

Which sums up every one of the bubble brains that start these threads trying to denigrate atheists and atheism.

They never learn...but that is what qualifies them as theists because have no interest in learning.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well, the Creationists know that "science" is full of bull. We KNOW you guys got nothing.

Irony squared!

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.

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.

Then you admit atheism has nothing to do with FACT.

Thus it's a religion, just like Christianity or any other religion.

I thought so.

Once again- you are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

Once again you are left hysterically ranting because you can't refute the op.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

So you are running away and declaring you won anyway.

Figures!

BZZZT Wrong again!

I am pointing out that you lack the cognitive capacity to comprehend why you are drowning in denial.

Your IQ is the equivalent of a Barbie doll so it is a complete and utter waste of time trying to educate someone who refuses to acknowledge scientific knowledge and instead believes in myth and superstition.

The irony is that if it weren't for math and science you wouldn't have this forum to display your ignorance.

Oh so when you are losing because you can't refute the op, just declare I'm the one that's intelligence challenged.

Yeah, well if I am soooooooooo dumb and you are still losing, what does that say about you??

What's so hard about this people?

Is there or is there not any hard evidence for how life began?

If not then HOW can one declare one theory is "science" and another theory is "religion?"

I have YET to hear one shred of evidence to counter this. Just hysterical rants that Creationism is religion well because you guys say so!!!!

That's not science, that's dogma.

 

[hotpotato]

Some of the more educated believers are seeing their fairy tale facts don't add up!

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

 

[teapartysamurai]

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?

The OP has established that she lacks honesty, integrity, education and basic reading comprehension.

Which sums up every one of the bubble brains that start these threads trying to denigrate atheists and atheism.

They never learn...but that is what qualifies them as theists because have no interest in learning.

I'm lying????

Where have I lied????

Is there hard evidence for God? No!

Is there hard evidence for how life began? NO!

Is there hard evidence for life on other planets? No!

Where is the lie?

You are just sputtering that I'm lying because you can't get around this gorilla in the room.

Those are not lies. THOSE ARE FACTS.

When you can refute that, please let me know.

Until then, your ilk is sputtering and ranting because you can't deal with the fact, I'm entirely right.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Some of the more educated believers are seeing their fairy tale facts don't add up!

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

Well, that's great, but I'm not Catholic.

It always cracks me up that all atheists seem to think we are all Catholics.

Nor have I said how life began. I SAID there's is no hard evidence for how life began.

Why is that so hard for your side to concede??

I know why. Because if you do, then you have to admit Creationism is just as valid and your side would rather hot glue yourselves to the Temple Wall in Jerusalem than do that.

 

[hotpotato]

Did I say you were catholic? I merely claimed some educated believers had realised creationism is bunkum!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Did I say you were catholic? I merely claimed some educated believers had realised creationism is bunkum!

Yeah, but BASED ON WHAT FACT????????????

I mean if you guys are so intelligent, why must I repeat this over and over, because I can't crack your closed minds?

THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

So, where is the evidence to discount any theory?

Psst! There isn't any!!!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

What debate? There's nothing to debate because you have no argument.

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.

Then you admit atheism has nothing to do with FACT.

Thus it's a religion, just like Christianity or any other religion.

I thought so.

Once again- you are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

Once again you are left hysterically ranting because you can't refute the op.

You are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Then you admit atheism has nothing to do with FACT.

Thus it's a religion, just like Christianity or any other religion.

I thought so.

Once again- you are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

Once again you are left hysterically ranting because you can't refute the op.

You are a liar, a hypocrite and a false Christian.

Because Because, you SAY SO!

Isn't that the very core of atheism in the first place?

I've exposed your phoniness atheists.

So who's lying?

 

[hotpotato]

Did I say you were catholic? I merely claimed some educated believers had realised creationism is bunkum!

Yeah, but BASED ON WHAT FACT????????????

I mean if you guys are so intelligent, why must I repeat this over and over, because I can't crack your closed minds?

THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

So, where is the evidence to discount any theory?

Psst! There isn't any!!!!!!

I believe the Vatican has a lot more evidence than you or myself will ever witness...I tend to put more credence in what the Pope has to say than some rightwing nutjob!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Did I say you were catholic? I merely claimed some educated believers had realised creationism is bunkum!

Yeah, but BASED ON WHAT FACT????????????

I mean if you guys are so intelligent, why must I repeat this over and over, because I can't crack your closed minds?

THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

So, where is the evidence to discount any theory?

Psst! There isn't any!!!!!!

I believe the Vatican has a lot more evidence than you or myself will ever witness...I tend to put more credence in what the Pope has to say than some rightwing nutjob!

But you have NO EVIDENCE to back that up. Thus you are engaging in an act of FAITH that they are correct.

So how does that make you more correct than someone engaging in an act of Faith regarding Creationism???

All you have engaged in above is an act of smug prejudice. No evidence, no argument. Just "I'm right because I say so!"

 

[teapartysamurai]

See what I mean? It's very easy to defeat atheists.

The core of their beliefs is based on FAITH not evidence. That is the conundrum they have a real problem admitting.

 

[hotpotato]

I would suggest the Pope declaring in favour of evolution and the big bang, evidence that some educated christians are realising their argument isn't as strong as the opposing one! Perhaps one day you will evolve a similar position?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I would suggest the Pope declaring in favour of evolution and the big bang, evidence that some educated christians are realising their argument isn't as strong as the opposing one! Perhaps one day you will evolve a similar position?

Education is not evidence.

There were some plenty educated people who believed in pseudoscience like eugenics, spiritualism, and even fairies.

Being "educated" does not automatically mean every thing that comes out of your mouth is correct.

AGAIN, one NEEDS EVIDENCE.

Just insisting, "well he/she is educated so that means they are right" is not an act of intelligence OR evidence. It's a simple act of FAITH that the "educated" must always be right.

Sorry, it's not evidence. And now you are just double and tripling down on it, because you can't think of anything to do because your "evidence" proved to be nothing of the sort.