The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Vandalshandle]

MD, have you considered the possibility that Satan, the lord of lies, has your soul snagged in a set of vice-grips?

While it is a less valid explanation than "you show forms of mental illness common to cultists", it is nonetheless an alternate explanation for your actions. Satan, being evil and clever, would know he could discredit God by getting believers to act very badly in public.

 

[mamooth]

You were saying something about mental illness, cults and Satan. Prior to cuisine and stuff, I was talking about the foundational axioms of human cognition and the objective facts regarding the problems of origin and existence thereof.

Scientologists tell me about Thetans and engrams. Just like you and your arguments, they're positive it's rational and convincing, and that they've destroyed anyone who argues against them.

To those outside of your cult, it's apparent how you're using very many words just to define yourself as correct over and over, cloaking your lack of any substance with layers of Unibomber-style psychobabble. As with the Unibomber or the Scientologists, the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle.

Now, I'm sure you were quite the hit of the late night drunken dorm room bull sessions. You no doubt ruled there, as you waved about your bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade for extra emphasis. That's probably why your reception here has come as such a shock to you, because you've never tested yourself outside of an audience that already agreed. Plus, people are sober here, so they just laugh at your mental onanism.

Now, back to the Satan theory. Given the nearly-infinite skill and cunning of Satan, how can you be sure all of your arguments haven't been placed into your mind by Satan?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Sorry, but this has been addressed for you and resolved on multiple occasions There are no laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired.

Yours is a pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claim. But then, you have an entire posting history of pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claims.

Meatloaf with mashed potatoes and green beans.

It's as though you hyper-religious loons have all spilled out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Fine! Have it your way then: green eggs and ham with toasted, buttered sourdough, a mess of bacon and orange juice. Happy? You want some coffee, too? Espresso, fancy pants, or straight up regular?

Does anyone else get a really good chuckle when reading posts like this from Hollie??? lol

forthright belittlery will ferment her ire and frustrate her feelings of adequacy........

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You were saying something about mental illness, cults and Satan. Prior to cuisine and stuff, I was talking about the foundational axioms of human cognition and the objective facts regarding the problems of origin and existence thereof.

Scientologists tell me about Thetans and engrams. Just like you and your arguments, they're positive it's rational and convincing, and that they've destroyed anyone who argues against them.

To those outside of your cult, it's apparent how you're using very many words just to define yourself as correct over and over, cloaking your lack of any substance with layers of Unibomber-style psychobabble. As with the Unibomber or the Scientologists, the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle.

Now, I'm sure you were quite the hit of the late night drunken dorm room bull sessions. You no doubt ruled there, as you waved about your bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade for extra emphasis. That's probably why your reception here has come as such a shock to you, because you've never tested yourself outside of an audience that already agreed. Plus, people are sober here, so they just laugh at your mental onanism.

Now, back to the Satan theory. Given the nearly-infinite skill and cunning of Satan, how can you be sure all of your arguments haven't been placed into your mind by Satan?

So, just a cup of joe for ya? Or maybe a Coke? Dr. Pepper? Another jar of hooch? I got the lightening straight up or bourbon for a mint julep.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but this has been addressed for you and resolved on multiple occasions There are no laws of human thought are bioneurologically hardwired.

Yours is a pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claim. But then, you have an entire posting history of pointless, unsubstantiated and fraudulent claims.

Meatloaf with mashed potatoes and green beans.

It's as though you hyper-religious loons have all spilled out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Fine! Have it your way then: green eggs and ham with toasted, buttered sourdough, a mess of bacon and orange juice. Happy? You want some coffee, too? Espresso, fancy pants, or straight up regular?

Does anyone else get a really good chuckle when reading posts like this from Hollie??? lol

forthright belittlery will ferment her ire and frustrate her feelings of adequacy........

And not one of you pointless spammers has any ability to even make an attempt to address the salient points.

 

[Hollie]

You were saying something about mental illness, cults and Satan. Prior to cuisine and stuff, I was talking about the foundational axioms of human cognition and the objective facts regarding the problems of origin and existence thereof.

Scientologists tell me about Thetans and engrams. Just like you and your arguments, they're positive it's rational and convincing, and that they've destroyed anyone who argues against them.

To those outside of your cult, it's apparent how you're using very many words just to define yourself as correct over and over, cloaking your lack of any substance with layers of Unibomber-style psychobabble. As with the Unibomber or the Scientologists, the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle.

Now, I'm sure you were quite the hit of the late night drunken dorm room bull sessions. You no doubt ruled there, as you waved about your bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade for extra emphasis. That's probably why your reception here has come as such a shock to you, because you've never tested yourself outside of an audience that already agreed. Plus, people are sober here, so they just laugh at your mental onanism.

Now, back to the Satan theory. Given the nearly-infinite skill and cunning of Satan, how can you be sure all of your arguments haven't been placed into your mind by Satan?

So, just a cup of joe for ya?

Stumble Bum is forever befuddled.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Meatloaf with mashed potatoes and green beans.

It's as though you hyper-religious loons have all spilled out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Fine! Have it your way then: green eggs and ham with toasted, buttered sourdough, a mess of bacon and orange juice. Happy? You want some coffee, too? Espresso, fancy pants, or straight up regular?

Does anyone else get a really good chuckle when reading posts like this from Hollie??? lol

forthright belittlery will ferment her ire and frustrate her feelings of adequacy........

And not one of you pointless spammers has any ability to even make an attempt to address the salient points.

little girl, you've wandered so far from the point you can't even remember what they were......

 

[Hollie]

It's as though you hyper-religious loons have all spilled out of the Harun Yahya madrassah.

Fine! Have it your way then: green eggs and ham with toasted, buttered sourdough, a mess of bacon and orange juice. Happy? You want some coffee, too? Espresso, fancy pants, or straight up regular?

Does anyone else get a really good chuckle when reading posts like this from Hollie??? lol

forthright belittlery will ferment her ire and frustrate her feelings of adequacy........

And not one of you pointless spammers has any ability to even make an attempt to address the salient points.

little girl, you've wandered so far from the point you can't even remember what they were......

You're just not up to the task of addressing the salient points. It's ok. You're of limited education and less imagination.

 

[Newby]

You were saying something about mental illness, cults and Satan. Prior to cuisine and stuff, I was talking about the foundational axioms of human cognition and the objective facts regarding the problems of origin and existence thereof.

Scientologists tell me about Thetans and engrams. Just like you and your arguments, they're positive it's rational and convincing, and that they've destroyed anyone who argues against them.

To those outside of your cult, it's apparent how you're using very many words just to define yourself as correct over and over, cloaking your lack of any substance with layers of Unibomber-style psychobabble. As with the Unibomber or the Scientologists, the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle.

Now, I'm sure you were quite the hit of the late night drunken dorm room bull sessions. You no doubt ruled there, as you waved about your bottle of Mike's Hard Lemonade for extra emphasis. That's probably why your reception here has come as such a shock to you, because you've never tested yourself outside of an audience that already agreed. Plus, people are sober here, so they just laugh at your mental onanism.

Now, back to the Satan theory. Given the nearly-infinite skill and cunning of Satan, how can you be sure all of your arguments haven't been placed into your mind by Satan?

'the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle'.... lol You gotta love their 'science', right??? Irony at its best!

 

[Mathbud1]

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.

Atheists don't require "hard evidence" that life exists on other planets. They know that the conditions for life exist on other planets and the mathematical odds favor the existence of life on other planets.

As for how life began this planet has the same conditions as the billions of other similar planets in the Universe so given the mathematical odds that life occurred on this planet it is safe to assume that it has probably occurred countless times on other planets too.

As far as the mathematical odds for the existence of gods there is most certainly a probability that there are beings with godlike powers in the Universe. But having godlike powers does not make them the "creator" of the Universe.

The problem that creationists like you face is the Omnipotence Paradox. Unless you can resolve that the only hypocrites here are you and your ilk. You claim to believe in an omnipotent creator but you refuse to explain the paradox.

The "Omnipotence Paradox" is easy to resolve. The paradox starts with the assumption that you believe in an omnipotent God, or in other words, a God that can do anything. To resolve the paradox, you simply remove that assumption. In other words, you would believe in a God who was powerful enough that it would seem like omnipotence to a human. Such as believing in a God who can do any rational thing. A stone so heavy it could not be lifted is not a rational thing. Any stone, as a finite object, will have some force x that is sufficient to move it.

Any simple paradox that seeks to prove that God cannot exist is as simply undone. For a simple paradox to work you have to define God in a specific way and prove that that specific definition is impossible. Since God can be defined in a possibly infinite number of variations, you would need an equal number of paradoxes to prove that all of them are impossible.

It's completely irrational to try to prove that God does not exist because it is completely irrational to try to prove that anything does not exist.

 

[mamooth]

'the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle'.... lol You gotta love their 'science', right??? Irony at its best!

If you think the endless pages of psychobabble twaddle was a valid argument, then summarize it for us. Briefly, and in your own words, show us the validiity of the argument.

Now, I don't have high hopes for you here, given you've never displayed any intelligence or integrity before. Joining a pack to gang up on people is more your thing. But who knows, maybe you're not just the brainless bully that you come across as, and this is your chance to show it.

 

[Newby]

'the only refutation needed is to point out that it's twaddle'.... lol You gotta love their 'science', right??? Irony at its best!

If you think the endless pages of psychobabble twaddle was a valid argument, then summarize it for us. Briefly, and in your own words, show us the validiity of the argument.

Now, I don't have high hopes for you here, given you've never displayed any intelligence or integrity before. Joining a pack to gang up on people is more your thing. But who knows, maybe you're not just the brainless bully that you come across as, and this is your chance to show it.

If you think calling it 'psychobabble twaddle' is a valid argument, you obviously have no business discussing science. I haven't seen you post a valid refutation of what was presented, mainly because you don't even understand it.

Pack? That describes libs on here to a "T", must have feelings of guilt regarding it. lol

 

[mamooth]

But I do understand it. It's just MD defining himself as correct over and over, and cloaking it in psychobabble gibberish.

You, of course, don't understand it at all. You proved that by refusing to explain it. Since you don't understand it, how can you claim it's correct?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

But I do understand it. It's just MD defining himself as correct over and over, and cloaking it in psychobabble gibberish.

You, of course, don't understand it at all. You proved that by refusing to explain it. Since you don't understand it, how can you claim it's correct?

Oh, so now you're saying that you believe there is substance behind the idea of God in your mind? That's weird. Did you want a root beer float to go with that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Atheists don't require "hard evidence" that life exists on other planets. They know that the conditions for life exist on other planets and the mathematical odds favor the existence of life on other planets.

As for how life began this planet has the same conditions as the billions of other similar planets in the Universe so given the mathematical odds that life occurred on this planet it is safe to assume that it has probably occurred countless times on other planets too.

As far as the mathematical odds for the existence of gods there is most certainly a probability that there are beings with godlike powers in the Universe. But having godlike powers does not make them the "creator" of the Universe.

The problem that creationists like you face is the Omnipotence Paradox. Unless you can resolve that the only hypocrites here are you and your ilk. You claim to believe in an omnipotent creator but you refuse to explain the paradox.

Oh, so now you're saying that abiogenesis is an established fact of science, even when it's only an inexplicable hypothesis? When have we ever observed the mundane, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to produce anything at all above the infrastructural level of being, let alone anything as staggeringly complex as life?

And what is this Omnipotence Paradox you're going on about? Please humor me. It's sounds like something really smart, but I'll bet it's something really silly dreamt up by atheists.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Atheists don't require "hard evidence" that life exists on other planets. They know that the conditions for life exist on other planets and the mathematical odds favor the existence of life on other planets.

As for how life began this planet has the same conditions as the billions of other similar planets in the Universe so given the mathematical odds that life occurred on this planet it is safe to assume that it has probably occurred countless times on other planets too.

As far as the mathematical odds for the existence of gods there is most certainly a probability that there are beings with godlike powers in the Universe. But having godlike powers does not make them the "creator" of the Universe.

The problem that creationists like you face is the Omnipotence Paradox. Unless you can resolve that the only hypocrites here are you and your ilk. You claim to believe in an omnipotent creator but you refuse to explain the paradox.

Oh, so now you're saying that abiogenesis is an established fact of science, even when it's only an inexplicable hypothesis? When have we ever observed the mundane, self-ordering properties of mere chemistry to produce anything at all above the infrastructural level of being, let alone anything as staggeringly complex as life?

And what is this Omnipotence Paradox you're going on about? Please humor me. It's sounds like something really smart, but I'll bet it's something really silly dreamt up by atheists.

For you thumpers with a typically limited science vocabulary, I should point out that an "inexplicable hypotheis" is something you obviously read on some retrograde christian fundamentalist website.

I thought I might be the benovelent soul and instruct you regarding what a hypotheis is as it relates to science but, why? Your knowledge begins and ends at "the gawds did it". The fundamentalist zealot will not change a single opinion because, nothing, not argument, not fact, not reality itself, can shake his conviction that the "evilutionists" and/or any number of other co-conspirators are in involved in some cover up to discredit your gawds. Truly, a desperate and pathetic delusion.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For you thumpers with a typically limited science vocabulary, I should point out that an "inexplicable hypotheis" is something you obviously read on some retrograde christian fundamentalist website.

I thought I might be the benovelent soul and instruct you regarding what a hypotheis is as it relates to science but, why? Your knowledge begins and ends at "the gawds did it". The fundamentalist zealot will not change a single opinion because, nothing, not argument, not fact, not reality itself, can shake his conviction that the "evilutionists" and/or any number of other co-conspirators are in involved in some cover up to discredit your gawds. Truly, a desperate and pathetic delusion.

Limited science vocabulary?!


This from the an illiterate rube who has never discussed the pertinent science on any topic whatsoever on this forum and doesn't grasp the fact that logic and the philosophy of science (agency) necessarily precede or have primacy over science (methodology). But, by all means, read the following and tell us where I'm wrong: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Atheists don't require "hard evidence" that life exists on other planets. They know that the conditions for life exist on other planets and the mathematical odds favor the existence of life on other planets.

As for how life began this planet has the same conditions as the billions of other similar planets in the Universe so given the mathematical odds that life occurred on this planet it is safe to assume that it has probably occurred countless times on other planets too.

As far as the mathematical odds for the existence of gods there is most certainly a probability that there are beings with godlike powers in the Universe. But having godlike powers does not make them the "creator" of the Universe.

The problem that creationists like you face is the Omnipotence Paradox. Unless you can resolve that the only hypocrites here are you and your ilk. You claim to believe in an omnipotent creator but you refuse to explain the paradox.

The "Omnipotence Paradox" is easy to resolve. The paradox starts with the assumption that you believe in an omnipotent God, or in other words, a God that can do anything. To resolve the paradox, you simply remove that assumption. In other words, you would believe in a God who was powerful enough that it would seem like omnipotence to a human. Such as believing in a God who can do any rational thing. A stone so heavy it could not be lifted is not a rational thing. Any stone, as a finite object, will have some force x that is sufficient to move it.

Any simple paradox that seeks to prove that God cannot exist is as simply undone. For a simple paradox to work you have to define God in a specific way and prove that that specific definition is impossible. Since God can be defined in a possibly infinite number of variations, you would need an equal number of paradoxes to prove that all of them are impossible.

It's completely irrational to try to prove that God does not exist because it is completely irrational to try to prove that anything does not exist.

The basis of the faith of theists is that their God in omnipotent. If you remove that assumption their faith is then based upon a lesser God. So in order to believe that their God is omnipotent theists have to deal with the Omnipotence Paradox. That is the arrogance of theism in that it sets itself up for that conundrum.

As far as the existence of sentient beings with what to us appear to be "god-like powers" that is well within the realms of probability. The gods of the ancients could see what mere mortals were doing from on high and send a bolt from the sky to strike them dead. Today we have drones that allow us to see people on the other side of the planet and we can fire a missile that will kill them. To the ancients we now have "god-like powers" ourselves. Yes, there probably are beings who can change the orbit of a planet or make a star go supernova. But that doesn't make them Gods any more than we are.

 

[Hollie]

For you thumpers with a typically limited science vocabulary, I should point out that an "inexplicable hypotheis" is something you obviously read on some retrograde christian fundamentalist website.

I thought I might be the benovelent soul and instruct you regarding what a hypotheis is as it relates to science but, why? Your knowledge begins and ends at "the gawds did it". The fundamentalist zealot will not change a single opinion because, nothing, not argument, not fact, not reality itself, can shake his conviction that the "evilutionists" and/or any number of other co-conspirators are in involved in some cover up to discredit your gawds. Truly, a desperate and pathetic delusion.

Limited science vocabulary?!


This from the an illiterate rube who has never discussed the pertinent science on any topic whatsoever on this forum and doesn't grasp the fact that logic and the philosophy of science (agency) necessarily precede or have primacy over science (methodology). But, by all means, read the following and tell us where I'm wrong: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

On the contrary, thumpy, your inability to address a number of direct challenges to your amateurish and profoundly stupid notions of your claimed supernatural realms leaves to bluster on about the simplistic and pointless "Philosophy of pseudoscience".

What a laughable joke.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For you thumpers with a typically limited science vocabulary, I should point out that an "inexplicable hypotheis" is something you obviously read on some retrograde christian fundamentalist website.

I thought I might be the benovelent soul and instruct you regarding what a hypotheis is as it relates to science but, why? Your knowledge begins and ends at "the gawds did it". The fundamentalist zealot will not change a single opinion because, nothing, not argument, not fact, not reality itself, can shake his conviction that the "evilutionists" and/or any number of other co-conspirators are in involved in some cover up to discredit your gawds. Truly, a desperate and pathetic delusion.

Limited science vocabulary?!


This from the an illiterate rube who has never discussed the pertinent science on any topic whatsoever on this forum and doesn't grasp the fact that logic and the philosophy of science (agency) necessarily precede or have primacy over science (methodology). But, by all means, read the following and tell us where I'm wrong: Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

On the contrary, thumpy, your inability to address a number of direct challenges to your amateurish and profoundly stupid notions of your claimed supernatural realms leaves to bluster on about the simplistic and pointless "Philosophy of pseudoscience".

What a laughable joke.

That's weird. I'm only aware of two, arguably direct challenges offered by you to anything I've ever argued, and that's being generous given your obvious handicaps, and, of course, that nonsense was utterly annihilated. Oh, and the second one wasn't even your stuff, but something copied and pasted off of a website blathering pseudoscientific madness.

But, hey, I've got some peanut butter sandwiches and a glass of warm milk you can have.