Total Posts:428|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Absurdity of Atheism

Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:24:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

Certainly a lot of someone's idiocy exposed, yes. You do know that the textbooks give accounts of repeatable, testable data, right? It has nothing to do with 'because a book says so' and if you honestly think it is, you're a spastic. Clear?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths.

Because they are?

They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

Because it is?

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

No, the claims that evolution makes are the most likely explanation based on our observations. Scientists have to do much more work to find out why something happens than simply reading someone else's work. Theories are based off of any evidence that currently exists, and they attempt to tie together our observations, attempt to explain why things happen the way they do, and, most importantly, forms useful predictions based off of the evidence. They try to notice trends. The main thing that distinguishes these scientific claims from others is that if you ever doubt them, you can test them. If you doubt the theory of gravity, you can always drop an object. If you ever doubt the theory of evolution, you can form smaller-scale experiments with selective pressures applied to a population, or you can examine the fossil record, and cross-reference it with anything we can use to determine how things were in the past. We're not claiming that they are true because they are true, we are claiming that they are true because we've repeatedly been able to look and find evidence that they are true.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

We have to define some sense of trust somewhere. Adopting extreme solipsism like this isn't going to help anything. However, if we can't trust a scientist's claims, we can ask them for more information, or try to do the experiment ourselves.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:43:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

Um

a-theism = Without theism

theism = belief in a god(s)

I don't see where evolution has anything to do with atheism.

Furthermore, we have hundreds of contradictory texts which are mutuallky explusive claims to God/other stuff. None of which are verifiable, and with no original texts either, so we have stories of stories.

So, it make sense to put these ancient texts into an even lower category than the alien abduction stories....
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:24:44 PM, Graincruncher wrote:


Certainly a lot of someone's idiocy exposed, yes. You do know that the textbooks give accounts of repeatable, testable data, right? It has nothing to do with 'because a book says so' and if you honestly think it is, you're a spastic. Clear?

Response: Exactly. Textbooks do give those types of accounts, and a religious book is a textbook as well. Thus one cannot say that a religious textbook has no evidence and a science book does. Clear?
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 3:58:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

That is faulty logic. If I write that monkeys came in 1945 and ended WW2, but in that dissertation I stated that everything I said was true, and that anyone who doesn't accept it is a heathen, do you think that is rational?

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

The problem is that you extenuate that argument too far to encompass any written material. The textbooks simply describe the evidence, and since most of us are not scientists that have access to the bones or the training to understand fully their significance, we must reference other sources for our arguments, simply because it is irrational for us all to have the training to understand the fossil and DNA evidence and the ability to access it.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

Well, fact in the sense of we have no better explanations as of yet. Nothing can every be truly 'proven', because there are always questions like, do we really exist or similar ideas. Any thing that we have held for years as proven could be disproven tomorrow. Is that likely? No. Is it within the realm of possibility? Yes. We must accept that these are the best answers we have so far.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Ummmm. Because the entire scientific community says so? And once you get down to this, you are saying that just because something is claimed, it is equivalent to all claims. If my friend tells me they got a new dog, is that something that I need verification for? If my friend is trustworthy (as the scientific community is, curing all those diseases and giving us technology etc.) and I know he likes dogs, then I have reason to accept this claim unless later disproven.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

My evidence is that evolution works. Evolution has given us the cure to diseases that mutate and evolved to be resistant to previous tactics of prevention or curing.

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

The idiocy of your thinking exposed.

I don't really respect theists anymore. I don't mind if you do it for cultural reasons (like being culturally Jewish), but I only really respect deists, unaffiliated, agnostics and atheists, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Buddhists.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:40:33 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths.

Because they are?

They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

Because it is?

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

No, the claims that evolution makes are the most likely explanation based on our observations. Scientists have to do much more work to find out why something happens than simply reading someone else's work. Theories are based off of any evidence that currently exists, and they attempt to tie together our observations, attempt to explain why things happen the way they do, and, most importantly, forms useful predictions based off of the evidence. They try to notice trends. The main thing that distinguishes these scientific claims from others is that if you ever doubt them, you can test them. If you doubt the theory of gravity, you can always drop an object. If you ever doubt the theory of evolution, you can form smaller-scale experiments with selective pressures applied to a population, or you can examine the fossil record, and cross-reference it with anything we can use to determine how things were in the past. We're not claiming that they are true because they are true, we are claiming that they are true because we've repeatedly been able to look and find evidence that they are true.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

We have to define some sense of trust somewhere. Adopting extreme solipsism like this isn't going to help anything. However, if we can't trust a scientist's claims, we can ask them for more information, or try to do the experiment ourselves.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

Response: That still does not hide the idiocy of atheists, for claiming religious texts are not evidence but a science book is.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:02:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:43:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Um

a-theism = Without theism

theism = belief in a god(s)

I don't see where evolution has anything to do with atheism.

Furthermore, we have hundreds of contradictory texts which are mutuallky explusive claims to God/other stuff. None of which are verifiable, and with no original texts either, so we have stories of stories.

So, it make sense to put these ancient texts into an even lower category than the alien abduction stories....

Response: It makes no sense at all. And even scientists themselves hold different perspectives.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:56:58 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:24:44 PM, Graincruncher wrote:


Certainly a lot of someone's idiocy exposed, yes. You do know that the textbooks give accounts of repeatable, testable data, right? It has nothing to do with 'because a book says so' and if you honestly think it is, you're a spastic. Clear?

Response: Exactly. Textbooks do give those types of accounts, and a religious book is a textbook as well. Thus one cannot say that a religious textbook has no evidence and a science book does. Clear?

It's pretty clear you didn't understand a word I just said, because you missed the HUGELY important "repeatable, testable data" part. A religious book is a text book in the same way as a Harry Potter book is. Exactly the same way. A scientific textbook is essentially a record of observations that have been recorded, analysed, verified repeatedly by different sources and authorities in the field, checked against other data and then included in the main body of scientific knowledge.

But I don't expect you to understand any of that, either. Nobody stupid enough to type what you have so far in this thread is going to manage a word as long as 'missed'.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:07:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:58:53 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

That is faulty logic. If I write that monkeys came in 1945 and ended WW2, but in that dissertation I stated that everything I said was true, and that anyone who doesn't accept it is a heathen, do you think that is rational?

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

The problem is that you extenuate that argument too far to encompass any written material. The textbooks simply describe the evidence, and since most of us are not scientists that have access to the bones or the training to understand fully their significance, we must reference other sources for our arguments, simply because it is irrational for us all to have the training to understand the fossil and DNA evidence and the ability to access it.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

Well, fact in the sense of we have no better explanations as of yet. Nothing can every be truly 'proven', because there are always questions like, do we really exist or similar ideas. Any thing that we have held for years as proven could be disproven tomorrow. Is that likely? No. Is it within the realm of possibility? Yes. We must accept that these are the best answers we have so far.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Ummmm. Because the entire scientific community says so? And once you get down to this, you are saying that just because something is claimed, it is equivalent to all claims. If my friend tells me they got a new dog, is that something that I need verification for? If my friend is trustworthy (as the scientific community is, curing all those diseases and giving us technology etc.) and I know he likes dogs, then I have reason to accept this claim unless later disproven.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

My evidence is that evolution works. Evolution has given us the cure to diseases that mutate and evolved to be resistant to previous tactics of prevention or curing.

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

The idiocy of your thinking exposed.

I don't really respect theists anymore. I don't mind if you do it for cultural reasons (like being culturally Jewish), but I only really respect deists, unaffiliated, agnostics and atheists, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Buddhists.

Response: You sound retarded. You've done nothing but confirm my opening post by acknowledging that you accept science book as true because it says so. So you have no arguments against a religious person who does the same, unless you are a deluded hypocrite. Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:10:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:04:26 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:56:58 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:24:44 PM, Graincruncher wrote:


Certainly a lot of someone's idiocy exposed, yes. You do know that the textbooks give accounts of repeatable, testable data, right? It has nothing to do with 'because a book says so' and if you honestly think it is, you're a spastic. Clear?

Response: Exactly. Textbooks do give those types of accounts, and a religious book is a textbook as well. Thus one cannot say that a religious textbook has no evidence and a science book does. Clear?

It's pretty clear you didn't understand a word I just said, because you missed the HUGELY important "repeatable, testable data" part. A religious book is a text book in the same way as a Harry Potter book is. Exactly the same way. A scientific textbook is essentially a record of observations that have been recorded, analysed, verified repeatedly by different sources and authorities in the field, checked against other data and then included in the main body of scientific knowledge.

But I don't expect you to understand any of that, either. Nobody stupid enough to type what you have so far in this thread is going to manage a word as long as 'missed'.

Response: To the contrary, what is clear is you confirming the idiocy of atheism. For your proof that a science book is full of repeatable testable data is "because it says so'. Therefore, you have no logical reason to deny a religious book because it says so as well.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:10:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:04:26 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:56:58 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:24:44 PM, Graincruncher wrote:


Certainly a lot of someone's idiocy exposed, yes. You do know that the textbooks give accounts of repeatable, testable data, right? It has nothing to do with 'because a book says so' and if you honestly think it is, you're a spastic. Clear?

Response: Exactly. Textbooks do give those types of accounts, and a religious book is a textbook as well. Thus one cannot say that a religious textbook has no evidence and a science book does. Clear?

It's pretty clear you didn't understand a word I just said, because you missed the HUGELY important "repeatable, testable data" part. A religious book is a text book in the same way as a Harry Potter book is. Exactly the same way. A scientific textbook is essentially a record of observations that have been recorded, analysed, verified repeatedly by different sources and authorities in the field, checked against other data and then included in the main body of scientific knowledge.

But I don't expect you to understand any of that, either. Nobody stupid enough to type what you have so far in this thread is going to manage a word as long as 'missed'.

Response: To the contrary, what is clear is you confirming the idiocy of atheism. For your proof that a science book is full of repeatable testable data is "because it says so'. Therefore, you have no logical reason to deny a religious book because it says so as well.

No, that is what you claim my proof is. But you're fairly obviously an insane idiot and if you can't tell the difference between "sodium and chlorine will react to produce a salt" and "the mighty glorious wisdom of Pixieman turned the mountain into cheese and lo we all did get fat", you probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt ones. Or children.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:02:24 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:43:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Um

a-theism = Without theism

theism = belief in a god(s)

I don't see where evolution has anything to do with atheism.

Furthermore, we have hundreds of contradictory texts which are mutuallky explusive claims to God/other stuff. None of which are verifiable, and with no original texts either, so we have stories of stories.

So, it make sense to put these ancient texts into an even lower category than the alien abduction stories....

Response: It makes no sense at all. And even scientists themselves hold different perspectives.

Try harder. I defined atheism pretty simply.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:17:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:14:39 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

No, that is what you claim my proof is. But you're fairly obviously an insane idiot and if you can't tell the difference between "sodium and chlorine will react to produce a salt" and "the mighty glorious wisdom of Pixieman turned the mountain into cheese and lo we all did get fat", you probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt ones. Or children.

Response: No. That is what your proof is, evidence by the fact that you failed to provide any proof of evolution, without referring to a book or link. Dummy. So you've demonstrated the idiocy of Atheism. Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:19:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:15:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:02:24 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:43:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Um

a-theism = Without theism

theism = belief in a god(s)

I don't see where evolution has anything to do with atheism.

Furthermore, we have hundreds of contradictory texts which are mutuallky explusive claims to God/other stuff. None of which are verifiable, and with no original texts either, so we have stories of stories.

So, it make sense to put these ancient texts into an even lower category than the alien abduction stories....

Response: It makes no sense at all. And even scientists themselves hold different perspectives.

Try harder. I defined atheism pretty simply.
Response: And I demonstrated the idiocy of atheism even more simply. Try again.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:31:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:17:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:14:39 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

No, that is what you claim my proof is. But you're fairly obviously an insane idiot and if you can't tell the difference between "sodium and chlorine will react to produce a salt" and "the mighty glorious wisdom of Pixieman turned the mountain into cheese and lo we all did get fat", you probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt ones. Or children.

Response: No. That is what your proof is, evidence by the fact that you failed to provide any proof of evolution, without referring to a book or link. Dummy. So you've demonstrated the idiocy of Atheism. Debunked as usual.

If you wanted to save us all time you could just have posted "I really don't have a f*cking clue what I'm talking about or how science words" and been done with it. If you think you can win arguments by telling other people what they think, it isn't going to take them long before they realise that you don't think at all. Just parrot deluded word salad based on the most painful and fundamentally uneducated nonsense going.

What amazes me about Islam is that it manages to attract and even more insane & ignorant brand of failure than Christianity does. As if the bar could or should be set any lower than it already was.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:33:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I wasn't aware that mixing sodium and chlorine to make sodium chloride was considered part of evolutionary theory. Or do you only take issue with the science textbooks that contradict your preposterous fairytale of paedophiles and unicorns?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:19:31 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:15:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:02:24 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:43:18 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

Um

a-theism = Without theism

theism = belief in a god(s)

I don't see where evolution has anything to do with atheism.

Furthermore, we have hundreds of contradictory texts which are mutuallky explusive claims to God/other stuff. None of which are verifiable, and with no original texts either, so we have stories of stories.

So, it make sense to put these ancient texts into an even lower category than the alien abduction stories....

Response: It makes no sense at all. And even scientists themselves hold different perspectives.

Try harder. I defined atheism pretty simply.
Response: And I demonstrated the idiocy of atheism even more simply. Try again.

I said atheists don't believe. You haven't established that it is a foolish position, and I have put the positive case that accepting one if the ancient theistic positions is a foolish one, due to contradictory, unreproducable, unverifiable, mutually exclusive texts.

You haven't addressed this. Try harder.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:31:33 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:17:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:14:39 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

No, that is what you claim my proof is. But you're fairly obviously an insane idiot and if you can't tell the difference between "sodium and chlorine will react to produce a salt" and "the mighty glorious wisdom of Pixieman turned the mountain into cheese and lo we all did get fat", you probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt ones. Or children.

Response: No. That is what your proof is, evidence by the fact that you failed to provide any proof of evolution, without referring to a book or link. Dummy. So you've demonstrated the idiocy of Atheism. Debunked as usual.

If you wanted to save us all time you could just have posted "I really don't have a f*cking clue what I'm talking about or how science words" and been done with it. If you think you can win arguments by telling other people what they think, it isn't going to take them long before they realise that you don't think at all. Just parrot deluded word salad based on the most painful and fundamentally uneducated nonsense going.

What amazes me about Islam is that it manages to attract and even more insane & ignorant brand of failure than Christianity does. As if the bar could or should be set any lower than it already was.

Response: To the contrary, if you wanted to disprove that you are not a dumb and exposed atheist, you would be able to provide evidence for evolution without referring to a book or link. Yet you can't. Dummy. So you have just shown us the idiocy of atheism, for claiming religion is false because it refers to a book that simply says so, when you do the exact same for all of your beliefs. Another foolish atheist exposed. Try again.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:42:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:34:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I said atheists don't believe. You haven't established that it is a foolish position, and I have put the positive case that accepting one if the ancient theistic positions is a foolish one, due to contradictory, unreproducable, unverifiable, mutually exclusive texts.

You haven't addressed this. Try harder.

Response: And I said that atheists claim evolution is true because a book says so, in which you have not demonstrated that they do not. Thus confirming the idiocy of atheism for rejecting religion as false because its proof is a book that says its true when atheists refer to books that do the same. Try again.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:42:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:39:07 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:31:33 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:17:59 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:14:39 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

No, that is what you claim my proof is. But you're fairly obviously an insane idiot and if you can't tell the difference between "sodium and chlorine will react to produce a salt" and "the mighty glorious wisdom of Pixieman turned the mountain into cheese and lo we all did get fat", you probably shouldn't be allowed near sharp objects. Or blunt ones. Or children.

Response: No. That is what your proof is, evidence by the fact that you failed to provide any proof of evolution, without referring to a book or link. Dummy. So you've demonstrated the idiocy of Atheism. Debunked as usual.

If you wanted to save us all time you could just have posted "I really don't have a f*cking clue what I'm talking about or how science words" and been done with it. If you think you can win arguments by telling other people what they think, it isn't going to take them long before they realise that you don't think at all. Just parrot deluded word salad based on the most painful and fundamentally uneducated nonsense going.

What amazes me about Islam is that it manages to attract and even more insane & ignorant brand of failure than Christianity does. As if the bar could or should be set any lower than it already was.

Response: To the contrary, if you wanted to disprove that you are not a dumb and exposed atheist, you would be able to provide evidence for evolution without referring to a book or link. Yet you can't. Dummy. So you have just shown us the idiocy of atheism, for claiming religion is false because it refers to a book that simply says so, when you do the exact same for all of your beliefs. Another foolish atheist exposed. Try again.

So you want someone to prove evolution to you over the internet without using a book or a link?

Also, I don't know what nursery school it is you go to, but if they're teaching you that jubilantly announcing that you've won at the end of every single post, regardless of content or what the other person has said, your parents should probably move you to a different one. And be ashamed, although I'd hope that goes without saying.

Not only do you not understand science, but you don't understand discussion. But that's okay, because a magical guy will get you laid when you die. That's how it works, right?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:42:58 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

So you want someone to prove evolution to you over the internet without using a book or a link?

Also, I don't know what nursery school it is you go to, but if they're teaching you that jubilantly announcing that you've won at the end of every single post, regardless of content or what the other person has said, your parents should probably move you to a different one. And be ashamed, although I'd hope that goes without saying.

Not only do you not understand science, but you don't understand discussion. But that's okay, because a magical guy will get you laid when you die. That's how it works, right?

Response: I don't want you to do anything. I'm simply exposing the idiocy of atheism and sitting back and watching you confirm it. You have no proof of any of your beliefs except what a book told you. The very same for religion. So you are an exposed hypocrite for suggesting religion has no evidence when it is the same type of evidence you accept for atheism, which is, "because a book says so". Debunked as usual.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:49:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:42:31 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:34:44 PM, Sswdwm wrote:

I said atheists don't believe. You haven't established that it is a foolish position, and I have put the positive case that accepting one if the ancient theistic positions is a foolish one, due to contradictory, unreproducable, unverifiable, mutually exclusive texts.

You haven't addressed this. Try harder.

Response: And I said that atheists claim evolution is true because a book says so, in which you have not demonstrated that they do not. Thus confirming the idiocy of atheism for rejecting religion as false because its proof is a book that says its true when atheists refer to books that do the same. Try again.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. As I originally stated. Confirming your own ignorance. Try again.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:49:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd like to add 'irony' to the rapidly growing list of things you're somehow too stupid to understand. Fairly near the top, preferably.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:49:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. As I originally stated. Confirming your own ignorance. Try again.

Response: Nor did anyone say evolution has something to do with atheism. Thus falling over your own weak strawman. Debunked as usual. Try again.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 4:56:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:51:48 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:49:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. As I originally stated. Confirming your own ignorance. Try again.

Response: Nor did anyone say evolution has something to do with atheism. Thus falling over your own weak strawman. Debunked as usual. Try again.

You brought it up as a counterpoint to atheism.

And you still haven't addressed the meat of my rebuttal:

"I said atheists don't believe. You haven't established that it is a foolish position, and I have put the positive case that accepting one if the ancient theistic positions is a foolish one, due to contradictory, unreproducable, unverifiable, mutually exclusive texts".

Please demonstrate how any of these texts are more accurate at demonstrating a divine being than the Spider-Man comics are at demonstrating superpowers? I dare say you cannot.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:07:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:56:50 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:51:48 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 4:49:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:


Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. As I originally stated. Confirming your own ignorance. Try again.

Response: Nor did anyone say evolution has something to do with atheism. Thus falling over your own weak strawman. Debunked as usual. Try again.

You brought it up as a counterpoint to atheism.

And you still haven't addressed the meat of my rebuttal:

"I said atheists don't believe. You haven't established that it is a foolish position, and I have put the positive case that accepting one if the ancient theistic positions is a foolish one, due to contradictory, unreproducable, unverifiable, mutually exclusive texts".

Please demonstrate how any of these texts are more accurate at demonstrating a divine being than the Spider-Man comics are at demonstrating superpowers? I dare say you cannot.

Response: I brought it up as evidence that atheists are hypocrites in their evidence and reason for accepting evolution, while rejecting religion. You have not shown evidence to the contrary, thus supporting the claim.

And the topic is atheists and there absurdity. So it is for you to explain how you accept evolution as truth because a book says so but deny religion for the same reason. You cannot. Thus confirming my point.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:22:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You are actually the stupidest person I've ever encountered. Anywhere. Bar none. V3nsel is going to be devastated by this news, but you make him look like Gottfried Leibniz.
Zylorarchy
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:23:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths. They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

What is said in a book for the likes of scientific/atheist concepts can actually be tested. What is said in a book... can be tried, and thus it can often be discovered to be true or false. Also, what is written in "textbooks" has been written down based upon said evidence. You simply dismiss atheism because evidence of scientific is written down? Hm, what do you suggest, we all go out there and prove every single scientific theory for ourself? The theory of evolution again, comes from evidence, from study and a theory based upon... yep, EVIDENCE.

That is what separates atheism "books" from religious "books". Atheist/scientific theories are written based on research and evidence... that's all, teats all it comes down to. There is no evidence for writings of religious books...

The likes of what we (atheists) learn from books, can be tested, evidence for it can be sourced. That is what is absent from religious books.

Oh and finally, you call atheists idiots and atheism absurd because it (apparently on your view) bases itself on the same concept of religion (following a book). Are you not then insulting your own religion? If we are absurd for following scientific books, does that not make you absurd for following your religious book..? I can see your argument for hypocrisy, but not absurdity and idiocy.
"I am not intolerant of religion, I am intolerant of intolerance"
"True freedom is not simply left or right. It is the ability to know when a law is needed, but more importantly, know when one is not"
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2014 5:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/25/2014 4:00:00 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:40:33 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/25/2014 3:08:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
The arguments presented by Atheists are so illogical and hypocritical, that it's hard to imagine whether they are sane or not.

An atheist will deny or reject the teachings in religious scriptures and say that they are unsound or false because religious scriptures are made up of folklore and myths.

Because they are?

They also state that saying a religious scripture is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

Because it is?

But watch this. Ask any atheist about evoultion and what is their proof? They themselves refer to textbooks themselves as proof and claim that evolution is true for the same reasons why religious call their scriptures true. "Because it says so". That shows not only complete hypocrisy, but refutes the claim that evolution is true because according to atheists themselves, claiming something is true because it says it's true is faulty logic.

No, the claims that evolution makes are the most likely explanation based on our observations. Scientists have to do much more work to find out why something happens than simply reading someone else's work. Theories are based off of any evidence that currently exists, and they attempt to tie together our observations, attempt to explain why things happen the way they do, and, most importantly, forms useful predictions based off of the evidence. They try to notice trends. The main thing that distinguishes these scientific claims from others is that if you ever doubt them, you can test them. If you doubt the theory of gravity, you can always drop an object. If you ever doubt the theory of evolution, you can form smaller-scale experiments with selective pressures applied to a population, or you can examine the fossil record, and cross-reference it with anything we can use to determine how things were in the past. We're not claiming that they are true because they are true, we are claiming that they are true because we've repeatedly been able to look and find evidence that they are true.

It doesn't end there though. To defend that foolish claim, they say that it's not based on say so. They say that the science has been peer-reviewed, analyzed, and witnessed, observed and tested, so it's a fact.

But watch this. How do you know that it's been witnessed, peer-reviewed, and analyzed, observed and tested? "Because it says so". Hahah. They defend their faulty logic with the same faulty logic.

We have to define some sense of trust somewhere. Adopting extreme solipsism like this isn't going to help anything. However, if we can't trust a scientist's claims, we can ask them for more information, or try to do the experiment ourselves.

Therefore, since all atheist claims and alleged evidence that evolution is true or God does not or may not exist is based on "because a book says so" and cannot even present evidence that the authors are speaking truthfully, then they have no logical reasoning to deny any religious scripture as truth when it's based on the same type of evidence for evolution as true, which is, "because a book says so".

The idiocy of atheists exposed.

Response: That still does not hide the idiocy of atheists, for claiming religious texts are not evidence but a science book is.

"You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" - Deuteronomy 6:16

If I am skeptical of the claims made in a science book, I can test the claims made for myself and verify that they work. If I am skeptical of the claims made in a religious text, I am either instructed not to test them or the claims are untestable (such as the claim that an afterlife exists - I can't test this without killing myself, which I would strongly prefer not to do.) The claims that are made in a science book have undergone repeated testing, and if I feel that that testing isn't enough, I can test the claims again. With a religious text, I am not allowed this freedom, and if I think that a claim is false, I am instead assured that the text is infallible. Judging by your response, it seems that you either didn't read or didn't understand a word of my reply.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian