Atheists on the march in America

[havent forgotten]

John wrote:

You make the presupposition that there is no evidence without admitting you do not have the scientifically measurable evidence to support your position of nothing. You have placed limits on what may be limitless. You have placed limits where they need not be. Thus far I have seen no evidence provided by an atheist that would support what is disingenuously called natural mechanisms only. If you think there isn't evidence of design you would be wrong. Admittedly, this can not be proven using your constricting criteria, but nothing in this arena has been proven using this standard. You know this by now. That is why it is so frustrating to the forum when it's pointed out. Judging by the ever-growing anecdotal evidence of this forum overwhelmingly congregated by atheists, atheism is something else entirely. There is a large contingent of antitheists, a portion devoted to secular humanism, and some interplay with other assorted isms. The common denominator is that every single one of these positions is lacking in evidence. The notion that man is the be all end all is flawed in my opinion. Of course you wish to shirk any burden of proof. That's transparent and shows a weak position. Atheism has been co-opted by the new atheist. Much more vocal and commited to breaking down the populace writ large that actually do have a position. I've given more than enough opportunity for atheists to engage in debate that is not circular. The brilliance and weakness of atheism is no accountability. That's why it's not challenging to debate this topic with you loons. Apologies to the few that aren't driven by more than uncertainty. When Reagan debated Gorbachev on our nuclear arsenals each man had a position. If there was a political debate the political atheist would attack the other position and not have to be responsible for one himself. If one football team was atheist and the other was not they would have the ball on offense the whole game. Fumble, and the ball would be returned. This is what you ask for here, but is unacceptable in every other topic. I'm conservative btw. A rational freethinker. I'm sure you are a centrist LOL. What's the mushy middle thought on government size, abortion, tax rates?
If there isn't a position don't bother responding. How is the fence DREW, Curious, Mikey,,,,? You got the post wedged good and deep yet? Stump an antitheist! Ask it what it believes. Still going strong 60,000 plus posts in.
Still nothing about atheism in the atheist forum. No position, no post #. Lies, spin, ad hominem, and boredom.
Waiting for an example of what passes the cut for evidence from atheists. Cowards!

describe what you mean by a conservative - on politics, I think you mean. how does that relate to your views on religion? what candidate did you support in the GOP primaries, if you wish to tell us? you do not have to answer, but you mentioned it, and I am curious for more specific details. I am actually not entirely sure what your religious views are, since you are mostly hostile to atheists and interested in attacking rather than explaining your own beliefs in understandable words of your own.

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text>describe what you mean by a conservative - on politics, I think you mean. how does that relate to your views on religion? what candidate did you support in the GOP primaries, if you wish to tell us? you do not have to answer, but you mentioned it, and I am curious for more specific details. I am actually not entirely sure what your religious views are, since you are mostly hostile to atheists and interested in attacking rather than explaining your own beliefs in understandable words of your own.

Why are you avoiding the main focus of his post?

What is your reply to the double standards when it comes to evidence and proof?

[Rose_NoHo]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you avoiding the main focus of his post?
What is your reply to the double standards when it comes to evidence and proof?

What double standards are you talking about?

[LOL in a suit]

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> we generally agree on what an elephant is, however. we do not agree on what a god, God, or gods is/are. and most would think it invisible, one assumes. so how do we know there is not an invisible one out there or somewhere? I question whether we can ever know, especially since no one could possibly come up with a definition everyone would agree to. and what proof is there either way?
I still say I will go out on the limb as a hard atheist only with regard to the one definition of a god - an allgoodallpowerful one could not exist. even Zeus would be more plausible.

You either believe there is a god or you don't anything else is fence sitting.

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>What double standards are you talking about?

The standards of evidence and what is accepted as proof.

[Hidingfromyou]

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text> I have asked him to decide which claim he wants to make. A debate between him and Rose - if he is a hard believer and she is a hard atheist - should be interesting, if they meet on the exact same issue, and do not argue past each other and just insult each other.
I think most of you are educated to know the Shakespearean phrase "A plague on both your houses" from Romeo and Juliet. I am just a watcher and commenter in arguments between most hard atheists and all hard believers. I am a hard atheist on only one definition of a god - and that is of an allpowerfulallgood being, with intentionality. It could not exist. I'd debate that one, but only on the moral issues.

I tried engaging John in discussion once. He's incapable. He has no logic, doesn't understand much - history or science - and can't put words to his thoughts. It comes out so garbled, he eventually resorts to insults. After that introduction, I'll not bother with him, kindness or engagement.

But, yeah, you're posts have been balanced and thoughtful.

[Hidingfromyou]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
The standards of evidence and what is accepted as proof.

So tell us, what constitutes evidence for you? And why should it be allowed as evidence for all?

[ARGUING with IDIOTS]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>So tell us, what constitutes evidence for you? And why should it be allowed as evidence for all?

My opinion is irrelevant. It is you that will NOT define a standard. I will agree to use whatever standard you are able to comply with.

Now what?

[American Lady]

They need to be marching, along with the libs.....

[Richardfs]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you avoiding the main focus of his post?
What is your reply to the double standards when it comes to evidence and proof?

John has yet to have any point or focus.

[Richardfs]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
My opinion is irrelevant. It is you that will NOT define a standard. I will agree to use whatever standard you are able to comply with.
Now what?

Translation:-

"I haven't got a clue so you tell me."

[Joe Fortuna]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
What double standards are you talking about?

I think the better question is, what evidence, or proof is he talking about?

[Joe Fortuna]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
The standards of evidence and what is accepted as proof.

What evidence?

[John]

As per usual I skim your posts, find them lacking and laugh. For the first few years I indulged the nothings with their circular nonarguments. I no longer do so. I don't debate nothing and refuse to budge on that. This is an atheism forum. For the antitheists I have asked what they believe in this arena. I merely ask it meets the same criteria for evidence they hold others to. Those basic concepts nullify all the superfluous nonsense this farce of a forum has been.

A child can discern most of you don't give a damn about evidence. Your nonpoints are absurd. I'll continue to point out your nothing. I will wait for an accountable position of belief you fear putting up against a prime mover.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. 100 percent successful.

[John]

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you avoiding the main focus of his post?
What is your reply to the double standards when it comes to evidence and proof?

Liberal atheists don't have an issue with double standards LOL. You know that though.

[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 60,150 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

[Rose_NoHo]

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 60,150 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Note to lurkers: John lies and refuses to debate.
I have stated my position, many times, but he won't debate.
Here is my position:
1. If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. Therefore there is no god.

Stump John, ask him to debate.

[John]

Rose has difficulty differentiating between belief and disbelief. Please provide proof of your claim that I lie. Please provide an example of evidence that meets the criteria you hold others to.

Once again your agenda is not based on fact, logic, or reason. Your motivations come from warped emotions.

1. If Rose had a conscience there would be evidence of it.
2.there is no evidence of her conscience.
3. therefore Rose has no conscience.

You provide nothing to stump me with Rose. I do know you have no intention of debating the evidences of a prime mover vs ????????? LOL. Now watch Rose avoid offering any accountable position or explanation for what can only be construed as bigotry.

Thank nothing we have this forum to explain your nothing.

[Rose_NoHo]

John wrote:

Rose has difficulty differentiating between belief and disbelief. Please provide proof of your claim that I lie. Please provide an example of evidence that meets the criteria you hold others to.
Once again your agenda is not based on fact, logic, or reason. Your motivations come from warped emotions.

Actually, there is no emotion in my argument at all.
Let me try and break it down for you, make it really simple.
1. If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence.
Do you agree with that? Do you think it would be possible for god to exist, yet there be no evidence of his existence?

After you answer that, we'll move on.
OK?

Stump John, ask him a simple yes or no question.

[John]

No, we will move on when you provide an.accountable position. We will move on when you quit regurgitating nothing.

Can you give me an example of evidence in this.arena Rose? You still haven't given me evidence you have a conscience lol. Instead of awkwardly attempting to steer the narrative why not just provide an accountable position of belief or move on. I am prepared to debate anything but your nothing.

So, having no indisputable evidence for any consideration for "beginning" explain to us how you quantify these possibilities.

Here are a few:
Nothing
always was
prime mover

Let's see this magic, nonemotional formula. Folks, these loons have contributed nothing in their own forum for over three years!