Atheists on the march in America

[John]

Another day of ineptitude from the antitheists.*Note to lurkers* They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate. Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence. These are angry agenda driven folks that don't give a damn about the evidence.
If you want to subject yourself to this farce by all means see for yourself. Antitheists you could also just cut and paste one of the 63, 780 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

They have gone almost three years without giving one accountable position they are willing to debate.

In other words, John expects others to do what he has done in this thread: make a specific claim about the origin of the Universe, without providing any evidence to support that claim. John gets frustrated when everyone else isn't as unethical as he is.

John wrote:

Three years without an example of evidence that meets their criteria for evidence.

An example was given. John is lying.

[LucindaW]

Atheists can't experience God because they lack faith in God.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

[John]

Let me translate for Drew- As a lying, unethical, and intellectually dishonest antitheist he expects his forum to use arbitrary rules for evidence and not be able to give one example of something that meets that criteria.

As one of the most frequent posters in a forum about nothing he will simply avoid and obfuscate legitimate questions hoping we don't notice the ridiculousness of his nothing and the myriad ways John has exposed his agenda.

If I am lying Drew show everyone the example of evidence in this arena that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others accountable to. Three years of you having no evidence or accountable position. There is more evidence that you are crazy than anything you have submitted.

Drew fears debating on equal terms. Here is my accountable position. Prime mover. Drew just likes to try and marginalize believers but he sure is a coward when it comes time to put up or shut up.

How would Drew rank the following possibilities for the origin of the universe: always was, prime mover, something from nothing. Watch closely for Drewsie nonclaims and nonresponses. There is no agenda whatsoever he merely has to repeat his disbelief for three plus years and 60,000 plus posts. Evidence of a warped man LOL. Get help Drew.

Stump Drew! Ask him what he believes.

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
How does an atom "perceive" anything?

It is aware. All things possess awareness, or consciousness.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you know?

Before anything is, it it first thought.

[postscriptt]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Okay, so you made a bunch of assertions, where is the evidence that suggests any of this is at all reality?

Since I possess no scientific credentials and have not set up camp in science's land-o-facts, I am not required to provide observable testable evidence. I need not pretend to preserve acclaimed scientific facts, nor do I worry about losing face with my colleagues. As a non-subscriber, I have the freedom to stray beyond "official" scientific beliefs in my search for truth.

Atheists on the other hand, as subscribers to science and dwellers in the land-o-facts, must provide what science serves and requires - and that is, proof. Yet how reliable is the science loving atheist's proof? While they can crank out extraordinary statements like funny money, they cannot substantiate these claims with any authority when science's testable observable "evidence" keeps changing. Science has compromised itself by overstructuring and overburdening its repertoire of affirmations. It has stifled itself with an overproduction of "temporary truths" that in the sciences spring up like weeds - tomorrow to be trampled underfoot, barely living through a season before being replaced with a new batch of weeds, which in turn meets the same fate - falling by the wayside.

To complicate matters, each specific field of scientific inquiry in order to maintain its identity as biology, or physics, or psychology, accumulates its own body of temporary truths, or factoids to which it can become slavishly devoted (paradigms). These factoids are usually isolated - taken out of context to some extent and considered only as they relate to a certain discipline, not as they connect with other fields of study even when one set of factoids contradicts another set of factoids. This obfuscation and unreliability is the reason seekers see science as an undependable source of truth, and fewer young people choose science as a career.

[John]

I have simply made a statement in response to bigots that seek to marginalize believers that I will debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of their choice. The challenge has not been taken. This forum has nowhere to go when its time to bring out evidence or answer questions. I guess they just start a forum and hope someone that believes in a higher power makes a post. The very thing they despise is the one thing they need for a voice. Fight that God you don't believe in loons.

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

As a lying, unethical, and intellectually dishonest antitheist...

The only liar here is John. He's the one who claimed that he had an "accountable" position.

But he never seems able to account for it.

Ergo, it's not accountable. Ergo, he lied.

John wrote:

he expects his forum to use arbitrary rules for evidence

Funny how John can't seem to explain why it's "arbitrary" to have the rules that evidence should be objective and unambiguous.

John wrote:

and not be able to give one example of something that meets that criteria.

John lies yet again since he was given such an example.

John wrote:

If I am lying Drew show everyone the example of evidence in this arena that meets the evidentiary standard you hold others accountable to.

The arena is "things that either exist or don't exist". I gave the example of evidence for something that is claimed to exist.

That you don't like it isn't anyone else's problem.

John wrote:

Here is my accountable position.

Prove that it's accountable, John. I'm betting that you can't.

[Drew Smith]

How does an atom "perceive" anything?

postscriptt wrote:

It is aware. All things possess awareness, or consciousness.

You're just repeating the claim, not answering the question. How does an atom "perceive" or "possess awareness"?

postscriptt wrote:

Before anything is, it it first thought.

How do you know?

[John]

Pssst. Notice Drew didn't answer my questions. Notice Drew didn't provide an accountable position. Notice Drew can't meet his own rules. Notice Drew didn't didn't provide that example of evidence.

The arena is origin Drewsie. Thanks for being my dancing puppet and exposing atheism.

Nothing to see here folks. No takers for my simple proposal. Just the usual content bereft nothing.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

How does an atom "perceive" anything?
<quoted text>
You're just repeating the claim, not answering the question. How does an atom "perceive" or "possess awareness"?
<quoted text>
How do you know?

Humans and animals who possess awareness are made up of atoms.

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

Notice Drew didn't answer my questions.

Notice that I answered all of them, but because John doesn't like hearing the answers that he gets, he asks them repeatedly.

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

Humans and animals who possess awareness are made up of atoms.

Which doesn't tell us that atoms possess awareness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divis...

[postscriptt]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Which doesn't tell us that atoms possess awareness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divis...

It doesn't tell us that atoms don't possess awareness either.

[John]

How does Drew decide which is most or least likely of the following: always was, something from nothing, prime mover. Show us your work Drew. You did not answer this or much of anything else. You lie. It's the atheist way.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

[buckwheat]

You can't debate a christian about god. Anybody who believes in a magical being who lives in the sky is beyond rational thought. Religion is the best scam ever ran on gullible people, and I doff my hat to the Holy Scammers.

christians give their money to "god's collectors" with the PROMISE of eternal life in heaven. The evangelists do not have to worry about anybody coming back from death and asking for a refund.

IF god is real he can come to my house and collect his tithes in person. Until then, I think I'll spend my 10% on reality.

[Rose_NoHo]

John wrote:

Pssst. Notice Drew didn't answer my questions. Notice Drew didn't provide an accountable position. Notice Drew can't meet his own rules. Notice Drew didn't didn't provide that example of evidence.
The arena is origin Drewsie. Thanks for being my dancing puppet and exposing atheism.
Nothing to see here folks. No takers for my simple proposal. Just the usual content bereft nothing.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

John, you are lying. Drew did answer your questions.
You lie when you say I haven't presented an accountable position. I have, but you refuse to debate.
1. If god exists, there is evidence for this existence.
2. There is no evidence for his existence.
3. There is no god.
You won't even start debating point 1!
Stump John, ask him to debate.

[John]

Nope. Drew lies and you lie. Just cut and paste these relevant answers. This is an atheism forum Rose not a q and a of what I believe. Your disbelief is not belief.

If you want to debate the evidences and reasons I believe in a prime mover vs any accountable position of belief you would have done that years ago. You have nothing of your own.

If Rose had a conscience she would have evidence of it.
There is no evidence Rose has a conscience.
Rose has no conscience.

More lies. More nothing. No evidence from the bigots.

[John]

Anyone who believes in something from nothing is anti-science.

[Drew Smith]

John wrote:

How does Drew decide which is most or least likely of the following: always was, something from nothing, prime mover.

Based on the evidence. Is there any evidence presented for a prime mover? No? Then I guess that's not a likely solution.

I'm not claiming either of the others, so why would I need to decide whether or not they were likely?