The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[teapartysamurai]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Second one? Well this one doesn't need as much exposition to explain, Thank God.

See, again, atheists demand hard FACT to prove God exists.

BUT, I've never met an atheist yet that didn't believe that life exists on other planets.

Now regardless of whether you believe life exists on other planets, let's face some hard facts. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ON OTHER PLANETS. Certainly not intelligent life.

Oh we have some rocks from Mars that look like they may have had worms, and we have a Pyramid on Mars that turned out to be a bad taken picture. BUT, when you get right down to it, we don't have any evidence life exists on Mars.

So the same people that INSIST on hard evidence for God, chuck that all out the porthole when it comes to whether or not life exists elsewhere.

Atheists will become furious, and point out to "probabilities" that life exists elsewhere. But "probabilities" isn't hard evidence.

So, pointing out to them, that they have chucked their own demand for hard evidence to believe in life elsewhere, thus they are engaging in an act of FAITH is something that's like putting a cross up to a vampire. They can't stand to admit THAT.

It's fun to watch em go round and round in ever closing logic boxes, trying to get out of that one.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

 

[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.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

Thought so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a poster with the debilitating disease of IBTS (Irrational Bible Thumping Syndrome). Treatment for IBTS is similar to that for treatment of Ebola.

 

[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.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

Thought so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a poster with the debilitating disease of IBTS (Irrational Bible Thumping Syndrome). Treatment for IBTS is similar to that for treatment of Ebola.

Oh, in other words when confronted with the facts you can't deny, just call me a "Bible Thumper" and run away.

Wow, that was really incisive debate that proved how atheists are soooooooooo much smarter than Christians, right?

Pathetic!

 

[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.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

Thought so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a poster with the debilitating disease of IBTS (Irrational Bible Thumping Syndrome). Treatment for IBTS is similar to that for treatment of Ebola.

Oh, in other words when confronted with the facts you can't deny, just call me a "Bible Thumper" and run away.

Wow, that was really incisive debate that proved how atheists are soooooooooo much smarter than Christians, right?

Pathetic!

You didn't offer any facts.

You're just another hysterical, chest-heaving religious zealot.

However, don't let that interfere with the promotion of your conspiracy theories.

 

[amrchaos]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

 

[Hollie]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

I never got the impression the poster was thinking that far ahead. I was expecting a long list of bible verses

 

[Syriusly]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.
.

I don't believe in your god, or any other.

I what is arrogant about that?

I also don't collect stamps.

Do you also find my non-stamp collecting arrogant- or hypocritical?

I don't know why there is a small segment of Christians who are so offended that I don't join their mindthink.

 

[Syriusly]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

More along the line of- 'what does that have to do with my not believing in a god'?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.
.

I don't believe in your god, or any other.

I what is arrogant about that?

I also don't collect stamps.

Do you also find my non-stamp collecting arrogant- or hypocritical?

I don't know why there is a small segment of Christians who are so offended that I don't join their mindthink.

You are perfectly free to do so.

I'm merely commenting on the double standard atheists set for proof of God, vs. origins of life or life on other planets.

 

[Syriusly]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.
.

I don't believe in your god, or any other.

I what is arrogant about that?

I also don't collect stamps.

Do you also find my non-stamp collecting arrogant- or hypocritical?

I don't know why there is a small segment of Christians who are so offended that I don't join their mindthink.

You are perfectly free to do so.

I'm merely commenting on the double standard atheists set for proof of God, vs. origins of life or life on other planets.

What double standard have I set up?

Please feel free to point that out.

 

[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.

Um, no but that's a nice try attempting to turn it on it's head.

Atheists do NOT want to explore how life began. You can't want to explore unless you are open to ALL theories.

But atheists refuse to explore the possibility that God created it.

They will only accept theories that preclude God. But they have NO EVIDENCE TO DO THAT.

Either to accept God or exclude him. They have no evidence at all.

Thought so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a poster with the debilitating disease of IBTS (Irrational Bible Thumping Syndrome). Treatment for IBTS is similar to that for treatment of Ebola.

Oh, in other words when confronted with the facts you can't deny, just call me a "Bible Thumper" and run away.

Wow, that was really incisive debate that proved how atheists are soooooooooo much smarter than Christians, right?

Pathetic!

You didn't offer any facts.

You're just another hysterical, chest-heaving religious zealot.

However, don't let that interfere with the promotion of your conspiracy theories.

I'm not presenting a theory.

I'm presenting the double standard on which atheists set their standard on the existence of God, vs. the existence of life on other planets and how life began.

These are FACTS I am presenting.

A) There is no Hard evidence that God exists.

B) There is no hard evidence for how life began

C) There is no hard evidence for life on other planets.

Given these facts I find it amusing that atheists will chuck these requirement of hard evidence when it comes to life on other planets or how life began, but requires evidence with strict limitations when it comes to the Existence of God.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

THEN they have to ADMIT Creationism is just as valid a theory as any of theirs.

I have yet to have an atheist do that.

Their arrogance won't permit them.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

I never got the impression the poster was thinking that far ahead. I was expecting a long list of bible verses

That's because you are assuming what I think based on your bias against Christians. Yet, you whine about the presentation of fact?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.
.

I don't believe in your god, or any other.

I what is arrogant about that?

I also don't collect stamps.

Do you also find my non-stamp collecting arrogant- or hypocritical?

I don't know why there is a small segment of Christians who are so offended that I don't join their mindthink.

You are perfectly free to do so.

I'm merely commenting on the double standard atheists set for proof of God, vs. origins of life or life on other planets.

What double standard have I set up?

Please feel free to point that out.

The op is quite explicit.

 

[Hollie]

Sucker your opponent into a tenuous position.

Then get into a battle based on Skepticism.

Win because people will favor their beliefs of God over questionable scientific theories.

That is the formula, right.

What happens if the Atheists Is honest enough to say "I don't know?" when you ask "How did life start on Earth?" I think you maybe left in a pickle there.

THEN they have to ADMIT Creationism is just as valid a theory as any of theirs.

I have yet to have an atheist do that.

Their arrogance won't permit them.

Actually, ID'iot creationism is not a theory. It's a false label for christian fundamentalism.