The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[teapartysamurai]

I hope some Christians are reading this thread. You see? Atheists aren't as intimidating as you think. In fact, their beliefs are based on a complete falsehood wrapped in a phony faith.

Expose that, and they are left sputtering, shrieking and cursing like the dogma filled zealots they claim we are.

This is how you defeat them.

Not defending what is faith. You don't have to defend faith because faith is just that, faith.

But pointing out, they are no better, and that's what secretly fills them with such rage against Christians. That dirty little secret they don't want to admit to themselves.

 

[hotpotato]

The balance of evidence?

A book of fairytales v progressive science?

Your evidence is delivered and unchanging, it is a fairytale passed down by cavemen. Some believers are coming out from the cave.. It doesn't stop them believing in god.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, there's no requirement for faith in peer reviewed science. Faith is required for belief in your polytheistic gawds because the standards of evidence do not exist in your supernatural realms.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The balance of evidence?

A book of fairytales v progressive science?

Your evidence is delivered and unchanging, it is a fairytale passed down by cavemen. Some believers are coming out from the cave.. It doesn't stop them believing in god.

What evidence do you produce to back up which is "fairy tales" and which is not?

You have produced NO EVIDENCE.

Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false is no more valid than the Nazis practicing "racial science" because all their "educated" men said it was true.

A lot of false pseudoscience was considered true because "educated" men claimed it was.

Where is the EVIDENCE?

That's all I'm asking for!

As yet, all you can do is double down on the "well they are educated so that makes it true" dogma.

That's a dogma, not evidence.

 

[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.

Actually, there's no requirement for faith in peer reviewed science. Faith is required for belief in your polytheistic gawds because the standards of evidence do not exist in your supernatural realms.

EXACTLY!

But your wonderful "peer reviewed" science has yet to produce ANY HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

I'm not arguing that faith can outdo evidence.

I'm arguing there isn't ANY evidence to back up how life began PERIOD!

So how can one theory be discounted over another?

Where is the EVIDENCE???????

 

[teapartysamurai]

The balance of evidence?

A book of fairytales v progressive science?

Your evidence is delivered and unchanging, it is a fairytale passed down by cavemen. Some believers are coming out from the cave.. It doesn't stop them believing in god.

I haven't produced any evidence the Bible is true.

I believe the Bible is true based on FAITH. Faith does not require evidence.

However! Atheists insist their beliefs are NOT faith but based on evidence.

So where is the evidence for how life began?

Without that, then you cannot discount Creationism. There is no evidence to justify excluding any theory.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Eugenics is a canard that has been used by many of your fundamentalist Christian creation ministries in false and sleazy attempts to vilify biological evolution. It's a failed tactic and one that only serves to highlight the ignorance and desperation of fundie ministries to disparage science.

CA006 Evolution and eugenics.

Claim CA006:
Evolution promotes eugenics.
Source:
DeWitt, David A. 2002. The dark side of evolution. The Dark Side of Evolution Answers in Genesis
Response:

1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).
2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Round and round and round they go. When atheists will finally admit they can't argue against the obvious, we'll never know!

 

[koshergrl]

poor teatard....

should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.

no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.

you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.

no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.

poor dear.

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Kindly don't confuse "atheism" with "science". The two are not compatible.

 

[hotpotato]

"Just declaring something is true because other people say it is true, or declaring something is false because someone says it's false."

Exactly same as you are doing sister! Some of us would like to see evidence of the magic skyfairy, until that is proven I guess you are flying a similar kite to those who do not believe!
Your argument to see the evidence is no more valid than mine. You are declaring creationism a fact on the writings of stoneage people! Maybe you should start reading some fact based books instead of the bible!

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, there's no requirement for faith in peer reviewed science. Faith is required for belief in your polytheistic gawds because the standards of evidence do not exist in your supernatural realms.

EXACTLY!

But your wonderful "peer reviewed" science has yet to produce ANY HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

I'm not arguing that faith can outdo evidence.

I'm arguing there isn't ANY evidence to back up how life began PERIOD!

So how can one theory be discounted over another?

Where is the EVIDENCE???????

You should really get better informed. One of the dangers faced by christian zealots is their appalling lack of science vocabulary.

If you do a search, you will find there are many paths which science has discovered to allow for the beginning of life.

One of the profound difficulties faced by christian zealots is their lack of knowledge regarding the subject they argue against.

 

[Hollie]

poor teatard....

should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.

no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.

you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.

no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.

poor dear.

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Kindly don't confuse "atheism" with "science". The two are not compatible.

Kindly avoid subject matter you are wholly ignorant of.

 

[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.

Eugenics is a canard that has been used by many of your fundamentalist Christian creation ministries in false and sleazy attempts to vilify biological evolution. It's a failed tactic and one that only serves to highlight the ignorance and desperation of fundie ministries to disparage science.

CA006 Evolution and eugenics.

Claim CA006:
Evolution promotes eugenics.
Source:
DeWitt, David A. 2002. The dark side of evolution. The Dark Side of Evolution Answers in Genesis
Response:

1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).
2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based.

Eugenics started with Darwin. Not that I'm saying Darwin intended for that to happen. But once Darwin opened the bottle that ugly genie did pop out and it was educated people who did it.

The idea of eugenics existed previous to the existence of the word eugenics; for example, William Goodell (1829-1894) advocated the castration and spaying of the insane.[8][9] However, eugenics as a modern concept was originally developed byFrancis Galton. Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Galton believed that desirable traits were hereditary based on biographical studies.[10] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenicsG.[11] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained a controversial concept.[12]

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.[13] ThreeInternational Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[14] It has roots in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.[15] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries, including Belgium,[16] Brazil,[17] Canada,[18] Japan, and Sweden.[19]

Eugenics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As I said. Just because the "educated" say it's true, doesn't make it so.

Still requires EVIDENCE and you have yet to produce a shred.

 

[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.

Actually, there's no requirement for faith in peer reviewed science. Faith is required for belief in your polytheistic gawds because the standards of evidence do not exist in your supernatural realms.

EXACTLY!

But your wonderful "peer reviewed" science has yet to produce ANY HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

I'm not arguing that faith can outdo evidence.

I'm arguing there isn't ANY evidence to back up how life began PERIOD!

So how can one theory be discounted over another?

Where is the EVIDENCE???????

You should really get better informed. One of the dangers faced by christian zealots is their appalling lack of science vocabulary.

If you do a search, you will find there are many paths which science has discovered to allow for the beginning of life.

One of the profound difficulties faced by christian zealots is their lack of knowledge regarding the subject they argue against.

Oh, my now I'm being told, I'm being too uppity in discussing science with my "betters."

When my "BETTERS" produce a SHRED OF EVIDENCE to even begin refuting the op, then I will think of them as better.

Until then, you are just putting up a smoke screen of words because you can't bring yourselves to concede there is no evidence for how life began.

 

[teapartysamurai]

poor teatard....

should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.

no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.

you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.

no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.

poor dear.

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Kindly don't confuse "atheism" with "science". The two are not compatible.

Kindly avoid subject matter you are wholly ignorant of.

Bwahahaha!

I told you, they are left sputtering!

 

[Hollie]

The balance of evidence?

A book of fairytales v progressive science?

Your evidence is delivered and unchanging, it is a fairytale passed down by cavemen. Some believers are coming out from the cave.. It doesn't stop them believing in god.

I haven't produced any evidence the Bible is true.

I believe the Bible is true based on FAITH. Faith does not require evidence.

However! Atheists insist their beliefs are NOT faith but based on evidence.

So where is the evidence for how life began?

Without that, then you cannot discount Creationism. There is no evidence to justify excluding any theory.

You haven't produced any evidence the bibles are true because so much within the bibles is false.

In typical fashion for christian zealots, you can't refute the evidence for biological evolution so you're left to emotional tirades wherein you hope to vilify science.

And yes, ID'iot creationism is discounted as a viable theory because there is no coherent theory of magical / supernatural creation by your gawds or anyone else's gawds.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, there's no requirement for faith in peer reviewed science. Faith is required for belief in your polytheistic gawds because the standards of evidence do not exist in your supernatural realms.

EXACTLY!

But your wonderful "peer reviewed" science has yet to produce ANY HARD EVIDENCE FOR HOW LIFE BEGAN!

Pssst Don 8217 t tell the creationists but scientists don 8217 t have a clue how life began Cross-Check Scientific American Blog Network

I'm not arguing that faith can outdo evidence.

I'm arguing there isn't ANY evidence to back up how life began PERIOD!

So how can one theory be discounted over another?

Where is the EVIDENCE???????

You should really get better informed. One of the dangers faced by christian zealots is their appalling lack of science vocabulary.

If you do a search, you will find there are many paths which science has discovered to allow for the beginning of life.

One of the profound difficulties faced by christian zealots is their lack of knowledge regarding the subject they argue against.

Oh, my now I'm being told, I'm being too uppity in discussing science with my "betters."

When my "BETTERS" produce a SHRED OF EVIDENCE to even begin refuting the op, then I will think of them as better.

Until then, you are just putting up a smoke screen of words because you can't bring yourselves to concede there is no evidence for how life began.

You're not uppity, you're just ignorant regarding the issues involved. That's pretty typical when you fundie zealots are pressed to actually address the science issues.

 

[jillian]

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.

Eugenics is a canard that has been used by many of your fundamentalist Christian creation ministries in false and sleazy attempts to vilify biological evolution. It's a failed tactic and one that only serves to highlight the ignorance and desperation of fundie ministries to disparage science.

CA006 Evolution and eugenics.

Claim CA006:
Evolution promotes eugenics.
Source:
DeWitt, David A. 2002. The dark side of evolution. The Dark Side of Evolution Answers in Genesis
Response:

1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).
2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based.

Eugenics started with Darwin. Not that I'm saying Darwin intended for that to happen. But once Darwin opened the bottle that ugly genie did pop out and it was educated people who did it.

The idea of eugenics existed previous to the existence of the word eugenics; for example, William Goodell (1829-1894) advocated the castration and spaying of the insane.[8][9] However, eugenics as a modern concept was originally developed byFrancis Galton. Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Galton believed that desirable traits were hereditary based on biographical studies.[10] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenicsG.[11] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained a controversial concept.[12]

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.[13] ThreeInternational Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.[14] It has roots in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States.[15] Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries, including Belgium,[16] Brazil,[17] Canada,[18] Japan, and Sweden.[19]

Eugenics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As I said. Just because the "educated" say it's true, doesn't make it so.

Still requires EVIDENCE and you have yet to produce a shred.

 

[Hollie]

poor teatard....

should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.

no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.

you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.

no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.

poor dear.

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Kindly don't confuse "atheism" with "science". The two are not compatible.

Kindly avoid subject matter you are wholly ignorant of.

Bwahahaha!

I told you, they are left sputtering!

You are unable to address the science issues so you are left to respond with goofy smiley faces.

So who's sputtering?

 

[jillian]

poor teatard....

should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.

no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.

you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.

no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.

poor dear.

I'm not saying God can be proved.

I'm saying Atheists have a double standard on proof.

They demand evidence, especially hard evidence for God, but chuck all that for how life began. And then they play a deceptive game trying to hide under the "fact" of evolution when they know (or should) the origins of life isn't covered under evolution.

If you can't address that just admit it.

Snarky comments only highlights the vacuum of real debate you can bring to the subject.

It seems your real issue is that science has the means to explore the questions of how life began and you see that as a threat to the tales and fables of whatever creation story linked to whatever gawds will be displaced.

And just to bring you up to speed, biological evolution is as much a fact as anything in science can be termed a fact.

Kindly don't confuse "atheism" with "science". The two are not compatible.

Kindly avoid subject matter you are wholly ignorant of.

Bwahahaha!

I told you, they are left sputtering!

The only ones sputtering are the wingers who confuse religion and science.