Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[PostmodernProph]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

That is an article of faith. If you going to use faith as a trump card for every argumentative problem you come up against,

then you don't belong in a rational discussion.

sorry, but your "rational" argument would only be rational when used against someone who believed his deity was not eternal.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton.

You hope to sidestep any accounting for your simpleton claims.

Why would one r more of your gawds make the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

It seems your gawds have played a cruel joke on you.

someone who believes ostriches evolved from mammals 6000 years ago should not be calling another, a simpleton......

 

[Hollie]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

That is an article of faith. If you going to use faith as a trump card for every argumentative problem you come up against,

then you don't belong in a rational discussion.

sorry, but your "rational" argument would only be rational when used against someone who believed his deity was not eternal.....

Rational arguments are not necessarily subject to what you believe to be true. Believing the earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with connecting that belief to a rational argument.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course I do, if the discussion is about faith. And it is. Do you ever add anything to these discussions?

Nope! This discussion is about the endless atheism bashing that those who imagine they are going to heaven feel free to indulge themselves in whenever they need someone to blame.

Wrong again. This discussion is about the fact that the atheist faction, particularly of this site, is a fringe kook cult.

And the comments in the thread more than support that theory.

Ironic given that the OP fits the description of a "fringe kook cult[ist]".

But you don't get to decide how atheists perceive the mindless bashing by theists since you are not an atheist. The OP has been put on ignore for the endless use of vulgar insults. Do you condone your fellow believers acting like boorish louts and doing more harm to the image of your religion than good?

Ho hum. I have watched atheists thrash and troll this particular forum for years, and listened to their deranged cawing at the check-out stand in the store, at the school, and at work all my life. Hysterics/zealots one and all.

What a shame you learned nothing from those who sought to help you.

I think debates like these are important... although, ultimately, they do nothing to advance science or educate fundies. However, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics of fundie zealots, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

I have never received a sincere offer of "help" from an atheist. I sincerely doubt anyone in the history of mankind has.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


For either the first or the thousandth time, I'm not sure at this point,

The objective evidence for the non-existence of God is the lack of evidence for the existence of God.

You can say it as many times as you like, a lack of evidence is not evidence. Not unless you can specify what evidence there should be if there were a God, and support that objectively. Can you?[/QUOTE]

By your standards, all that is apparently non-existent must be assumed to exist because no one can produce evidence for non-existence.

By that standard, one must acknowledge with equal likelihood the existence of every god ever imagined in history of man's imagination.[/QUOTE]

As to your first claim, no. Quite the opposite. You are the one applying that standard by saying that if no one can produce evidence of existence it must be assumed not to exist. My standard is if you can't produce any evidence then any assumption is mere belief. Whether it is positive or negative is irrelevant.

As to your first claim, to some extent yes. I think it is fair to say we have enough information that the sun is not Apollo in his chariot, but beyond that they are all pretty much equal. In the absence of objective evidence, all assumptions are equally valid. Saying one is more valid than another is just belief.

I don't know you at all. So I will say you are a 37 year old man, with red hair, a small mole on your left shoulder, and are currently wearing green shorts and a red tank top with USC printed in gold letters on the front. Someone else may make another guess, but both guesses would be equally valid based upon the information available. Valid meaning, in this case, a blind guess with a near zero chance of being correct. But that guess is made with available information that you are human (an assumption I will take as a given) and speak English either as or as good as a native American. Considerably more evidence than we have regarding God.[/QUOTE]

Faith was invented to give credibility to delusion, or hallucination, or imagination, simply because of the stakes involved.

A person who claims to hear voices in his head and talks to them generally gets labeled as crazy to one degree or another.

A person who claims that God speaks to him and who prays to God is simply deemed a person of faith.

And by extension, it's because of the general difference between the two above (along with the stakes involved) that earns the atheist so much scorn.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

That is an article of faith. If you going to use faith as a trump card for every argumentative problem you come up against,

then you don't belong in a rational discussion.

sorry, but your "rational" argument would only be rational when used against someone who believed his deity was not eternal.....

Rational arguments are not necessarily subject to what you believe to be true. Believing the earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with connecting that belief to a rational argument.

sorry, but I won't accept arguments about rationality from someone who believes that global warming that occurred 150,000 years ago was caused by man made green house gases.....

 

[koshergrl]

Oh yawn. When you can't criminalize, you marginalize. This is what the progressives did to justify killing off and sterilizing the inhabitants of mental wards in the 50s.

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

That is an article of faith. If you going to use faith as a trump card for every argumentative problem you come up against,

then you don't belong in a rational discussion.

sorry, but your "rational" argument would only be rational when used against someone who believed his deity was not eternal.....

Rational arguments are not necessarily subject to what you believe to be true. Believing the earth is 6,000 years old has nothing to do with connecting that belief to a rational argument.

sorry, but I won't accept arguments about rationality from someone who believes that global warming that occurred 150,000 years ago was caused by man made green house gases.....

Omg, you're kidding...

 

[Hollie]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton.

You hope to sidestep any accounting for your simpleton claims.

Why would one r more of your gawds make the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

It seems your gawds have played a cruel joke on you.

someone who believes ostriches evolved from mammals 6000 years ago should not be calling another, a simpleton......

Your belief in a 6,000 year old planet is an obvious cause for concern.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

That is an article of faith. If you going to use faith as a trump card for every argumentative problem you come up against,

then you don't belong in a rational discussion.

sorry, but your "rational" argument would only be rational when used against someone who believed his deity was not eternal.....

Faith is an exercise reserved for those who choose not to be rational. That's what faith is. It's a different set of rules.

Rational - based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings.

 

[Hollie]

Of course I do, if the discussion is about faith. And it is. Do you ever add anything to these discussions?

Nope! This discussion is about the endless atheism bashing that those who imagine they are going to heaven feel free to indulge themselves in whenever they need someone to blame.

Wrong again. This discussion is about the fact that the atheist faction, particularly of this site, is a fringe kook cult.

And the comments in the thread more than support that theory.

Ironic given that the OP fits the description of a "fringe kook cult[ist]".

But you don't get to decide how atheists perceive the mindless bashing by theists since you are not an atheist. The OP has been put on ignore for the endless use of vulgar insults. Do you condone your fellow believers acting like boorish louts and doing more harm to the image of your religion than good?

Ho hum. I have watched atheists thrash and troll this particular forum for years, and listened to their deranged cawing at the check-out stand in the store, at the school, and at work all my life. Hysterics/zealots one and all.

What a shame you learned nothing from those who sought to help you.

I think debates like these are important... although, ultimately, they do nothing to advance science or educate fundies. However, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics of fundie zealots, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

I have never received a sincere offer of "help" from an atheist. I sincerely doubt anyone in the history of mankind has.

Yet again, a simpleton response from a simpleton.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton.

You hope to sidestep any accounting for your simpleton claims.

Why would one r more of your gawds make the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

It seems your gawds have played a cruel joke on you.

someone who believes ostriches evolved from mammals 6000 years ago should not be calling another, a simpleton......

Your belief in a 6,000 year old planet is an obvious cause for concern.

so is your claim about 150k year old global warming....

 

[Hollie]

Oh yawn. When you can't criminalize, you marginalize. This is what the progressives did to justify killing off and sterilizing the inhabitants of mental wards in the 50s.

How did you avoid....

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton.

You hope to sidestep any accounting for your simpleton claims.

Why would one r more of your gawds make the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

It seems your gawds have played a cruel joke on you.

someone who believes ostriches evolved from mammals 6000 years ago should not be calling another, a simpleton......

Your belief in a 6,000 year old planet is an obvious cause for concern.

so is your claim about 150k year old global warming....

Religion induced psychosis?

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton.

You hope to sidestep any accounting for your simpleton claims.

Why would one r more of your gawds make the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago.

It seems your gawds have played a cruel joke on you.

someone who believes ostriches evolved from mammals 6000 years ago should not be calling another, a simpleton......

Your belief in a 6,000 year old planet is an obvious cause for concern.

Of course I do, if the discussion is about faith. And it is. Do you ever add anything to these discussions?

Nope! This discussion is about the endless atheism bashing that those who imagine they are going to heaven feel free to indulge themselves in whenever they need someone to blame.

Wrong again. This discussion is about the fact that the atheist faction, particularly of this site, is a fringe kook cult.

And the comments in the thread more than support that theory.

Ironic given that the OP fits the description of a "fringe kook cult[ist]".

But you don't get to decide how atheists perceive the mindless bashing by theists since you are not an atheist. The OP has been put on ignore for the endless use of vulgar insults. Do you condone your fellow believers acting like boorish louts and doing more harm to the image of your religion than good?

Ho hum. I have watched atheists thrash and troll this particular forum for years, and listened to their deranged cawing at the check-out stand in the store, at the school, and at work all my life. Hysterics/zealots one and all.

What a shame you learned nothing from those who sought to help you.

I think debates like these are important... although, ultimately, they do nothing to advance science or educate fundies. However, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics of fundie zealots, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

I have never received a sincere offer of "help" from an atheist. I sincerely doubt anyone in the history of mankind has.

Yet again, a simpleton response from a simpleton.

I know you think you sound worldly and really smart when you say that over and over...but you don't. You sound like you don't have anything intelligent to say.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton..

roflmao. KG is ten times smarter than you and your leftie drones, Miss Ego

 

[koshergrl]

"
This same atheist group, the American Humanist Association, has, for the time being, obtained a court order to block construction of a war memorial inside of a city-owned baseball stadium in California, because the planned memorial includes a soldier kneeling before a cross.

Never mind that in cemeteries and at monuments throughout America, brave members of our military kneel in front of crosses each and every day in remembrance of their fallen comrades.

In that same city, one member of the American Humanist Association has also engaged in a crusade to rid the roadsides of crosses marking where loved ones have died.

One grieving mother can’t understand why someone would try to take down the small roadside memorial she placed to remember her son. “It’s still not fair,” she said. “There’s no reason why the cross had to come down. The cross is up here for [my son] Anthony.”

In the more famous case of the Ground Zero Cross — two intersecting steel beams found in the rubble of the World Trade Center after Sept. 11, 2001 — another perpetually angry atheist group, the American Atheists, argued before a federal appeals court last week that the cross cannot be included in the National 9/11 Memorial and Museum because it offends them.

In fact, they actually argue that the mere “existence” of the cross has caused them physical pain, headaches and mental anguish. We represent more than 230,000 Americans in that case and have filed an amicus brief with the appeals court defending this display.

These angry atheist groups have no respect for those who have experienced true pain and mental anguish. Nothing stands in their way, not the memory of the fallen, not grieving loved ones.

If it is a cross, it offends them and, therefore, must come down. It is a pervasive, unrelenting obsession with rooting out every vestige of religion from American life. They conflate their feelings with the Constitution.

The reality is that the Constitution, despite their self-righteous claims, does not support their view."

SEKULOW Atheists dismantling of crosses dishonors the fallen - Washington Times

 

[koshergrl]

Hysteric, zealot, loon = militant atheist.

 

[koshergrl]

Nothing crazy about them atheists, no sirree!:

"An atheist group is going after a small-town Arkansas pizza place for offering discounts to customers who brought in church bulletins on Sundays.

"Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter to Steven Rose, the owner of Bailey's Pizza in Searcy, Ark., warning him that his pizza parlor's offer to knock 10% off churchgoers' tabs amounted to discrimination, local KTHV-TV reported."

What loons.
Atheist group attacks Arkansas pizza parlor over church bulletin discount - NY Daily News

 

[PratchettFan]

Pick up a rock, any rock, and that is your objective evidence right there in your hand. That is matter. It contains potential energy which will become kinetic energy if you let it fall under the influence of gravity which is one of the forces of the universe.

All of those are objective and pertinent facts that the universe exists.

Compared to those facts there is not one single objective and pertinent facts that an omnipotent creator exists. Nowhere will you be able to point to a particle of matter or observe energy in motion or demonstrate a universal force that establishes the existence of an omnipotent creator.

In one hand you have a rock and in the other nothing whatsoever.

What rational conclusion can you draw from the evidence (and lack thereof) in your hands?

Well, since you are apparently talking to me again...

You have just given me the same argument I have gotten from Theists. Look at this rock, how else could it have gotten here if not for God? I will give you the same response.... I have no idea. Now, when you actually have some objective and pertinent fact let me know. All you have given me so far is unsupported belief.

What rock, where? I'm a geologist, so ask me a specific question about a specific rock, and I will give you a specific answer.

Really. I have a piece of geode on my desk my daughter gave to me. How is that evidence to existence or non-existence of God?

Your question is irrelevant to my challenge. My point is that just because you are clueless about rocks doesn't mean that others are also. For instance, your geode is a mineral-laden void structure usually chemically deposited/grown in sedimentary or volcanic rock. Any questions?

It wasn't your challenge, it was mine. I asked for any objective evidence as to the existence or non-existence of God. I made the assumption your comment had something to do with the conversation. I guess I was wrong.

For either the first or the thousandth time, I'm not sure at this point,

The objective evidence for the non-existence of God is the lack of evidence for the existence of God.

You can say it as many times as you like, a lack of evidence is not evidence. Not unless you can specify what evidence there should be if there were a God, and support that objectively. Can you?

It's not my burden of proof to disprove the existence of that for which there is no evidence for its existence.

If you are married and claim to have been faithful, is the lack of evidence of adultery on your part irrelevant to the validity of your claim?

Or can everyone rightfully assume that your inability to PROVE that you haven't been unfaithful is evidence against you?

Nor is a lack of evidence that I was unfaithful evidence that I was not. It is simply a lack of evidence. You have claimed a lack of evidence constitutes evidence. I am waiting for you to support that claim with other than belief. Exactly what evidence did you expect to find and why?

 

[Hollie]

Nobody created God. God has always existed.
That was easy.

A simpleton response from a simpleton..

roflmao. KG is ten times smarter than you and your leftie drones, Miss Ego

I need a chair to sit and watch the simpleton parade.