Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
John wrote: 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 65,610 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True
science that is repeatable and observable. i debate them all with you..you just lose every debate, and then lie about it.. why are the religious people such profuse liars like you johnnie? what's up with that? i guess you get it from that little r=prick of a lying god your cult tells you to worship, huh? made in your image, ain't he?
|
|
Since: Apr 11
Van Nuys, CA
|
Please wait...
BBSting wrote: <quoted text>
Your argument is baseless, because your premise is false. The notion that God does not exist cannot be proved using the scientific method. To blindly reject God without evidence to support your censure is not just unreasonable, it's imbecilic.
<quoted text>
God does not exist, eh? The very word, "God" has the power to close an atheist's mind tighter than a bull's arse in January! LMAO! Why should I even entertain the idea that god exists?
|
|
Since: Apr 11
Van Nuys, CA
|
Please wait...
BBSting wrote: <quoted text>
How can you even begin to comprehend something you believe does not exist? Hello? Use your brain! To make God's existence evident, you must first SEEK God. Until you do, the evidence you demand will always escape you. But people who SEEK god find all sorts of different gods. How do we know which, if any, are real?
|
|
Since: Apr 11
Van Nuys, CA
|
Please wait...
Lincoln wrote: <quoted text>
20th century soaked in the blood of atheist governments.
East Germany, the Berlin wall,
shooting people
who wished to leave.
Stalin
Himler
Hitler
Mao
Zinoviev
Kaminev
Fidel Castro
Lenin
Trotsky
Twentieth century atheists in power resulted in mass murder.
No wonder neither political party nominated atheists for president.! Unless they killed in the name of atheism, the fact that they were (or weren't) atheists isn't an issue. Neither party nominated an (open) atheist because an atheist can't win in the US.
|
|
John
Des Moines, IA
|
More claims of accountable positions, but strangely none was posted. Ignore the noise from the loons. They just ignore the questions and refuse to debate.
Nothing Bless
|
|
Since: Apr 11
Van Nuys, CA
|
Please wait...
John wrote: More claims of accountable positions, but strangely none was posted. Ignore the noise from the loons. They just ignore the questions and refuse to debate.
Nothing Bless Again, here is my accountable position. 1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence. 2. There is no evidence of his existence. 3. There is no god. John won't even deal with point 1. Come on, John, do you agree with point 1 or not? Stump John, ask him to debate.
|
|
“I Am No One Else”
Since: Apr 12
Seattle
|
Please wait...
BBSting wrote: <quoted text>
Science says SOMETHING went bang but it cannot explain what it was or where it came from. This version is even more nebulous than the Christian's idea of creation! And worse, you believe it! Why? Let's examine your assertion here a bit more, I know you hate it when we actually look at your assertions but meh. 1. Big Bang is supported by some very obvious facts that cannot be refuted, in which case everything is expanding, or moving away from each other in other words. 2. Thus everything had to be really small at one point, at least the things moving away from each other, and thus there had to be a rapid expansion at some point, thus the misnomer "big bang." 3. Everything had to come from somewhere, that's where the theory ends and a new one must be formulated and tested to produce an answer to. Then your creationism: 1. Everything was made by something else. 2. That something else therefore had to come from somewhere, which you don't know if that something is even intelligent much less if it's your "god" thing. 3. This is all based on zero evidence, as there is no evidence suggesting it, therefore it can be dismissed before even going into the really hard questions that this notion creates. 4. The new question is how did this thing cause it? 5. Another new question is where did this thing come from? 6. Another question is how does this thing exist? 7. Another is how is it this thing is intelligent, or even if it is? 8..... and on ad infinitum .... Simplest answers are often the correct ones, thus by default your creationism has made itself impossible.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Taipei, Taiwan
|
Please wait...
John wrote: More claims of accountable positions, but strangely none was posted. Ignore the noise from the loons. They just ignore the questions and refuse to debate.
Nothing Bless I dont see you putting anything up either.
|
|
|
|
“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”
Since: Dec 06
Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA
|
Please wait...
|
|
“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”
Since: Dec 06
Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA
|
Please wait...
John wrote: Bob was too embarrased to open his evidence free link. His agenda has clouded his thinking LOL. And I notice YOU failed to refute ANY of the 100's of links. Why? Oh! Right-- you are a cowardly liar.
|
|
John
Des Moines, IA
|
Rose continues to cite disbelief as her accountable position of belief. Coward Bob thinks collecting dozens of BS responses and linking them proves something.
We are right where we started in 2009. These bigots have no evidence in this arena that meets their own criteria. Notice their response has and will validate that claim.
How does an atheist quantify the possibility of always was, prime mover, something from nothing? Please show your work. Notice their response will not address their futility.
Now that I've exposed their nonsense I am still willing to debate the evidences/reasons to believe in a prime mover vs ?????. Your forum loons. You've basically treated it like Paris Hilton has her inheritance.
Get your nothing out of here!
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
John wrote: Rose continues to cite disbelief as her accountable position of belief. Coward Bob thinks collecting dozens of BS responses and linking them proves something.
We are right where we started in 2009. These bigots have no evidence in this arena that meets their own criteria. Notice their response has and will validate that claim.
How does an atheist quantify the possibility of always was, prime mover, something from nothing? Please show your work. Notice their response will not address their futility.
Now that I've exposed their nonsense I am still willing to debate the evidences/reasons to believe in a prime mover vs ?????. Your forum loons. You've basically treated it like Paris Hilton has her inheritance.
Get your nothing out of here! What even makes you think "always was, prime mover, and something from nothing" area possibility?
|
|
John
Des Moines, IA
|
You skipped the questions. I'm very curious how long you will continue a forum about nothing. Some of my friends and I are betting on this. It appeared to be dead a few times, but I know what strings my puppets respond to.
March away!
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
John wrote: You skipped the questions. I'm very curious how long you will continue a forum about nothing. Some of my friends and I are betting on this. It appeared to be dead a few times, but I know what strings my puppets respond to.
March away! Like you have friends...sure pal, sure...
|
|
Thinking
Derby, UK
|
John's socks are his friends. Fundies have got to bulk up those falling numbers somehow... woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>Like you have friends...sure pal, sure...
|
|
Since: Mar 11
St. Croix valley
|
Please wait...
Thinking wrote: John's socks are his friends. Fundies have got to bulk up those falling numbers somehow...
<quoted text> At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."
|
|
Since: Nov 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>
Let's examine your assertion here a bit more, I know you hate it when we actually look at your assertions but meh.
1. Big Bang is supported by some very obvious facts that cannot be refuted, in which case everything is expanding, or moving away from each other in other words. That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang. KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>2. Thus everything had to be really small at one point, at least the things moving away from each other, and thus there had to be a rapid expansion at some point, thus the misnomer "big bang."
3. Everything had to come from somewhere, that's where the theory ends and a new one must be formulated and tested to produce an answer to. So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe. KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>Then your creationism:
1. Everything was made by something else.
2. That something else therefore had to come from somewhere, which you don't know if that something is even intelligent much less if it's your "god" thing. Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough. KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>
3. This is all based on zero evidence, as there is no evidence suggesting it, therefore it can be dismissed before even going into the really hard questions that this notion creates. Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck KittenKoder wrote: <quoted text>4. The new question is how did this thing cause it?
5. Another new question is where did this thing come from?
6. Another question is how does this thing exist?
7. Another is how is it this thing is intelligent, or even if it is?
8..... and on ad infinitum ....
Simplest answers are often the correct ones, thus by default your creationism has made itself impossible. Enter God, a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.
|
|
Thinking
Kingston Upon Thames, UK
|
www.smellyourmum.com/believe-thats-nice-imagi... woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."
|
|
Thinking
Kingston Upon Thames, UK
|
Better link here: http://www.smellyourmum.com/images/believegod... woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>At least he has his imaginary sky buddy. "so he's got that going for him...which is nice."
|
|
Thinking
Kingston Upon Thames, UK
|
Why? BBSting wrote: <quoted text>
That's the assumption anyway, but it doesn't explain what "caused" the big bang.
<quoted text>
So the story goes, but science cannot explain where this really small SOMETHING came from, or why it suddenly expanded to form the universe.
<quoted text>
Science does not acknowledge a "something else" leaving one to assume that NOTHING caused this very small SOMETHING to expand. To say everything came from the Big Bang is like saying babies come from maternity wards, the theory doesn't go back far enough.
<quoted text>
Like the big bang theory, there is an hypothesis: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." - Max Planck
<quoted text>
Enter God, a primary nonphysical gestalt of consciousness, which was, is and will always be. And which exists within and behind all systems and universes. What it boils down to then, is whose THEORY is more believable and makes more sense. Primary consciousness is more believable and makes more sense than NOTHING.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Virgo
