The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[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.

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.

Round and round they go. I keep repeating the same thing but they either can't comprehend it or they don't want to, because it brings them to a conclusion they can't force themselves to consider.

A) I have neither claimed nor can I produce evidence the Bible is true. I accept the the Bible on FAITH.

Even the Bible itself says that Faith is not based on hard evidence.

Hebrews 11:1-3 King James Version
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

You get it? FAITH.

B) There is no hard evidence for the existence of God.

You get it? I believe in God based on FAITH.

C) There is no evidence for how life began.

Therefore! What atheists believe regarding these things is also BASED ON FAITH.

There is no evidence for or against!

When you atheists can produce a shred of evidence to refute this, please let me know.

So far you have only gone round and round repeating your mantras and your dogmas BUT HAVE STILL YET TO PRODUCE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Still waiting, still knowing that evidence isn't going to happen, because it does not exist.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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?

Actually it is YOU that is unable to address the issues of science.

I DID address them and you have yet to refute that.

A) There is no evidence that God exists.

B) There is no evidence for how life began.

STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE TO REFUTE THAT!

(and I'll keep on waiting while atheists make fools of themselves going round and round insisting that they are right simply because they are atheists).

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

And the EVIDENCE for which is which?

Still waiting!

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have YET to hear one shred of evidence to counter this.

You have already destroyed your own credibility. Continuing to lie isn't helping you one iota.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah and calling people "fundie" and "zealots" is sooooooooooo scientific.

That really is the "evidence" that you are right, huh?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I have YET to hear one shred of evidence to counter this.

You have already destroyed your own credibility. Continuing to lie isn't helping you one iota.

Where have I lied?

You have yet to produce a shred of evidence for that.

A) There is no hard evidence for God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began.

Just because you do not want to admit it doesn't make it a lie.

To simply rant it is a lie is simply your frustration that fact has met your faith and your faith has been left wanting.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Yes, the atheists.

 

[Hollie]

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.

And the EVIDENCE for which is which?

Still waiting!

As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.

CB010.2 Origin of the first cells

There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.


Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Evidence people?

You rant, you call names, but you have yet to produce a shred of evidence!

 

[koshergrl]

"Being explored", lol

You anti-Christian hysterics don't even know what scientific proof is, and when you're faced with science you don't like, you scream to prevent the knowledge from reaching the masses...for example, the science regarding ebola, and the nature and risks of abortion. You really don't like that science at all. It's so ironic.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Yes, the atheists.

Actually, it's you and the other extremist who are thumping your bibles without offering any coherent commentary.

 

[koshergrl]

Really?

Where did I thump the bible?

Oh wait, it's an anti-Christian bigot. She's just lying.

 

[Hollie]

"Being explored", lol

You anti-Christian hysterics don't even know what science is. It's so ironic.

Really, dear. Your polytheistic gawds as magicians and sorcerers don't belong in a discussion of science. Rattle your prayer beads elsewhere.

 

[Hollie]

Really?

Where did I thump the bible?

Oh wait, it's an anti-Christian bigot. She's just lying.

Oh wait, it's a christian fundamentalist looking for attention.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

And the EVIDENCE for which is which?

Still waiting!

As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.

CB010.2 Origin of the first cells

There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.


Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.

Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:

1. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

CB010.2 Origin of the first cells

In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.

As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:

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

 

[Derideo_Te]

Where have I lied????

You constantly lie by alleging that you have not been provided with hard factual evidence that supports the conditions for life on other planets.

 

[koshergrl]

So not only are you ignorant as to the definition of "fundamentalism"...apparently you have conflated Christianity with buddhism.

My, you're certainly a credible anti-Christian bigot.

Not.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Yes, the atheists.

Actually, it's you and the other extremist who are thumping your bibles without offering any coherent commentary.

If it is not coherent REFUTE it!

A) There is no hard evidence for the existence of God.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began.

You have YET to do that.

You are the one that cannot make a coherent argument to deny that.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

And the EVIDENCE for which is which?

Still waiting!

As usual, your ineptitude regarding science leaves you at a disadvantage.

CB010.2 Origin of the first cells

There are a number of viable possibilities still being explored.


Tell us about your talking snakes, magical gardens and a 6,000 year old planet.

Being explored doesn't mean anything has been proven or is there hard evidence. You didn't read your own link:

1. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

CB010.2 Origin of the first cells

In other words they don't have diddly in the way of hard evidence.

As I posted before. Even Scientific American admits the truth:

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

Omg, you expect her to READ? She doesn't have to read! She used the word "SCIENCE"!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The core of their beliefs is based on FAITH not evidence

Kindly refrain from imposing your own shortcomings on others.