Theories on Why Atheists are met with Hostility

[THE LIGHT]

Utterly irrelevant!

Your mythical belief that your God "created" man rests on nothing but the imaginations of bronze age men who believed that they should make a blood sacrifice of their own children to your God.

That your "faith" is placed in a bloodthirsty egomaniac who murdered innocent first born children because he was throwing a hissyfit is the height of irrationality.

While the exact origin of life is yet to be determined the evolution of man can be traced through hundreds of millions of years of scientific evidence.

Ironic.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, there's overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, none at all for supernatural intervention by ant gods. So, you are left to promote conspiracy theories as to why the relevant science community is wrong and you Flat Earth types are right regarding the diversity of life on the planet.

When supernaturalists/creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further to angry tirades and simpleton expressions of magical creation. But how does that help them?

Do gawds that created bacteria and then let everything else evolve from there conform any better with the record of Genesis than no gawds at all? Either way, the Bibles still cannot be taken literally. Adam and Eve are still an allegory. Biblical history is still a myth.

It is not the issue of evolutionary biology that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is only an irritant to the actual disagreement with science, and most creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about the issue of the evolution of human beings.

Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus the entirety of the relevant science community.

FACTS:

• One sentence is spent asserting that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
• No evidence is presented for Darwinian Evolution. Not even one example.
• The remaining 4.5 paragraphs are spent railing against people who don't choose to follow Hollie's religious dogma.

And you were unable to refute a single point.

You may need to spend some time and actually learn some science if you're going to rail against it. There is no disagreement among the relevant science community that biological organisms evolve. Your revulsion for science is focused on this particular element.

Science is based on observational, testable evidence. This is different from religion, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, science comes from evidence, while religion uses evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the holy text de jour).

Theism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (floods, miracles and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book(s))-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Theism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference.

You Harun Yahya clones are a danger to yourselves.

 

[Hollie]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument. As we in this thread, you're utterly unable to present a defendable counter argument.

Maybe you need to duct tape your bibles together into a double-wide for some serious thumping.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I need only bring a rational argument.

Of which you are incapable.

As we in this thread, you're utterly unable to present a defendable counter argument.

You are still in denial.

 

[THE LIGHT]

And you were unable to refute a single point.

You may need to spend some time and actually learn some science if you're going to rail against it. There is no disagreement among the relevant science community that biological organisms evolve. Your revulsion for science is focused on this particular element.

There is no disagreement among the people who don't disagree. How precious.

 

[Hollie]

I need only bring a rational argument.

Of which you are incapable.

As we in this thread, you're utterly unable to present a defendable counter argument.

You are still in denial.

I think the truth is useful, of course. Why do far fewer people believe in literal creationism now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Certainly, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creation hypothesis. In large part this was because the religious authorities had greater influence and managed to rigorously suppress the scientific community. A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery. Things are different now. The religious orthodoxy in particular was finally pushed aside as the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution was demonstrated. That was a positive development for humanity. I can’t imagine a world wherein humanity was consigned to forever being under the yolk of ideologies that shroud the natural world in fear and superstition.

 

[Hollie]

And you were unable to refute a single point.

You may need to spend some time and actually learn some science if you're going to rail against it. There is no disagreement among the relevant science community that biological organisms evolve. Your revulsion for science is focused on this particular element.

There is no disagreement among the people who don't disagree. How precious.

There is no disagreement as to the fact of biological evolution among the relevant science community.

You're childlike in your responses. While you Christian extremists are repulsed by science and the consensus it brings, you have no viable alternative to explain the diversity of life on the planet.

Tales and fables of angry gawds, global floods, Arks and a 6,000 year old planet are not viable theories.

BTW, don't you find it really creepy that your gawds would destroy humanity because they were a disappointment and then decided that Noah and his immediate family would re-populate the planet? That suggests some rather creepy (and biologically flawed), inter-familial relationships.

Was it your gawds who coined the phrase "incest is best"?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Billy try this, Google "where are Christians being persecuted" and, "Is Christian persecution on the rise" and "Has the murder of Christians doubled."

Hollie, verbatim accounts of seeing Christ's return have been posted here. As badly as you want it not to be true, it's true anyway.

And this thread is a beautiful example of who is really faced with hostility. Christians do not treat atheists as badly as atheists treat Christians, and we have 25 pages of proof right here. Regardless of which side you're on, here is a bit of sound advice for all of us:

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto them.

There are "verbatim" accounts of many things that are undemonstrated and false. "Verbatim" accounts of Bigfoot have no requirement for belief.

Secondly, your alleged "verbatim" accounts are no such thing. The accounts suffer many discrepancies, are second hand hearsay - of worse and are utterly absent substantiation.

You believe them because they were imposed upon you from an early age and you have never critically analyzed any of it.

its your choice whether to believe them or not.....we had a recent situation in Ferguson, MO which demonstrated that verbatim accounts can vary........

Right. Which just dismantled the claim to "verbatim" accounts being used to support claims to supernaturalism.

not at all.......it merely points out that you've made the incorrect choice in this instance.....however, the issue was never whether one needed to accept the verbatim report......the claim was made that there simply weren't any......that claim is patently false......

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

???......I've dismantled nothing.....except perhaps the argument that there were no verbatim accounts.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

 

[Hollie]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

 

[Hollie]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

I do. Your pointless one-liners are wholly inadequate to address it.

 

[PostmodernProph]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Lashing out like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior doesn't change the perception that you and others are simply parroting false dogma.

I agree. So stop doing that.

If you are reactive and defensive about others challenging your dogma, you and others might consider actually being acquainted with the reality of that dogma.

Why are you so defensive?

That was quite a sidestep.

When you're unable to defend the claims you make, that should suggest to you that avoiding these venues would be a wise choice.

Then you should heed your advice and leave.

And let you spam the thread with superstitious nonsense?

No. I'll stick around and counter your fears and superstitions with fact and reason.

Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat.

I need only bring a rational argument.

its a shame you don't have one......

I do. Your pointless one-liners are wholly inadequate to address it.

lol.....no little girl.....you are not rational......you complain that Christians today do not take the scriptures as literally as they did in the 1600s.......apparently that poses problems for you, because all your arguments are directed at the literal beliefs of the 1600s......that's why all you can come up with is a paste about 6000 year old earths.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What accounts exist? You do realize that according to the fable, De' Hey-zeus was in a cave when he magically arose.

Therefore, you are the one who is wrong.

Are you admitting you lied about what you said?

By the way, how do you know he was in a cave if there are no accounts of what happened?

 

[Hollie]

That was horrible. You thoroughly dismantled any claim to verbatim accounts being believable. Now you're stuttering and mumbling hoping to minimize the damage.

You are the person who said no such accounts exist. Now you are claiming the fact that someone is honest is proof they are lying.

By the way, who was it that said that all eyewitness accounts are true again?

My comment was there were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead. There were none.

You should pay attention to what I write.

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Exactly. Again, you utterly dismantle your own dogma. We should therefore treat most of the claims surrounding De' hey-Zeus with little attention.

you overlook the fact that there were witnesses with first hand knowledge......unfortunately for your argument, they testify against you......

You overlook the fact that you don't know what you're writing. There were no witnesses to De' hey-Zeus rising from the dead.

As you claim otherwise, identify the historical character who claims to have seen De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

Being clueless is no excuse for your fabrication and falsehoods.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Because me paying attention to what she wrote proved she actually wrote what I said she wrote, not what she now claims she wrote.

 

[Hollie]

What accounts exist? You do realize that according to the fable, De' Hey-zeus was in a cave when he magically arose.

Therefore, you are the one who is wrong.

Are you admitting you lied about what you said?

No. I'm identifying that you lied about what you wrote.

You still haven't identified who saw De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

 

[Hollie]

why should we pay attention to erroneous comments made without first hand knowledge?.......

Because me paying attention to what she wrote proved she actually wrote what I said she wrote, not what she now claims she wrote.

Your fumbling is not going to defend your lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I'm identifying that you lied about what you wrote.

You still haven't identified who saw De' hey-Zeus rise from the dead.

I don't recall saying I had the names of witnesses, perhaps you can point it out to me, like I pointed out where you said there were no accounts of the resurrection.

Or, perhaps, you prefer to pretend you won the debate by arguing with the voices in your head.