Atheists on the march in America

John wrote:

<quoted text>Therefore your refusal to provide an accountable position that meets your criteria for evidence has revealed the absurdity of your nothing. Therefore your poor comprehension is lack of intellect or purposeful. I don't debate nothing, therefore your post is in error. Therefore your nothing will remain for all to see.

Remember when you gave me rules for evidence? I do. It was about two years ago. I asked for an example in this arena and you couldn't come up with one.

Therefore, I wonder why you insist on these rules. Therefore, I know nothing is evidence for you. Therefore, I know you are a bigot.

Well said John! Drew is a coward and refuses to define a positive argument!

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text>
it is silly for an atheist to claim to know or be able to prove there is no god. it is for the believers to prove there is if they say they know there is or can prove there is.

Completeley false. God isn't real. You can't accept scientific facts, logic or rationality, and for that reason we don't need you to defend atheism here.

Especialy since you deliberately misrepresent it here, rejecting papers from NASA.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Therefore your refusal to provide an accountable position that meets your criteria for evidence has revealed the absurdity of your nothing. Therefore your poor comprehension is lack of intellect or purposeful. I don't debate nothing, therefore your post is in error. Therefore your nothing will remain for all to see.
Remember when you gave me rules for evidence? I do. It was about two years ago. I asked for an example in this arena and you couldn't come up with one.
Therefore, I wonder why you insist on these rules. Therefore, I know nothing is evidence for you. Therefore, I know you are a bigot.

Please take your religious bullsh*t to a thread that cares.

John wrote:

<quoted text>
Therefore your refusal to provide an accountable position that meets your criteria for evidence has revealed the absurdity of your nothing. Therefore your poor comprehension is lack of intellect or purposeful. I don't debate nothing, therefore your post is in error. Therefore your nothing will remain for all to see.
Remember when you gave me rules for evidence? I do. It was about two years ago. I asked for an example in this arena and you couldn't come up with one.
Therefore, I wonder why you insist on these rules. Therefore, I know nothing is evidence for you. Therefore, I know you are a bigot.

OOOOH, you little liar you! confused little liar, too! LOL This has all been said before...therefore, you attempt to circumvent debate protocol. Therefore your vague claim for a "Prime Mover" is ill defined & unsupported with actual evidence, therefore NO response to your absurdity is required until YOU post accountable EVIDENCE for your claim. This has been pointed out to you abundantly, yet you simply ignore rational discussion in favor of your ill defined & useless argument...THEREFORE you are an idiotic parrot with no argument.

John wrote:

Therefore your refusal to provide an accountable position...

I provided one. You keep ignoring it. Here it is again:

"No evidence has been provided to support the claim for a 'prime mover'. Therefore the claim is rejected."

John wrote:

Remember when you gave me rules for evidence? I do. It was about two years ago. I asked for an example in this arena and you couldn't come up with one.

Yes, I not only could, but I did. The Eiffel Tower. Did you forget? No, you just keep ignoring it.

Thanks for the nothing cowards. I will let those with half a brain realize on their own just how pertinent the Eiffel Tower submission was/is. True freethinkers want nothing to do with this bigotry.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. No evidence. No accountable position. No sense. Welcome to the nothing!

Facts, evidence, logic, rationality, freethinking,,, all meaningless words to you loons. Shout your buzzwords all day long. Your nothing is louder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/26/s...
Maybe atheists should issue 'thinwas'?

Religion = superstition - it's just plain crazy

John wrote:

Thanks for the nothing cowards. I will let those with half a brain realize on their own just how pertinent the Eiffel Tower submission was/is. True freethinkers want nothing to do with this bigotry.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. No evidence. No accountable position. No sense. Welcome to the nothing!

Note to lurkers: John will not debate. I have presented my accountable position many times. But he won't even deal with point one.

1. If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. Therefore, god does not exist.

If anybody out there wants to debate, please, let's debate.

Move on Rose. You have been exposed for the cowardly bigot you are. You still don't know the difference between belief and disbelief?

On and on and on. I don't debate nothing Rose. What do you believe in this arena? C'Mon now that's a basic and reasonable question. The fact you loons have avoided it for years is beyond laughable.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.
The next poser will also contribute no evidence or accountable position they are prepared to debate.

John wrote:

I will let those with half a brain realize on their own just how pertinent the Eiffel Tower submission was/is.

And everyone notes that John is unable to explain why it isn't pertinent.

As I said, he doesn't want to debate.

John wrote:

What do you believe in this arena?
The next poser will also contribute no evidence or accountable position they are prepared to debate.

I believe that there is NO evidence supportive of anything supernatural. Your turn dummy.
It has been pointed out to you repeatedly...YOU are making a claim...YOU provide a position supportive of your belief...YOU then provide evidence supportive of your position....but of course you don't want to do this rationally & logically....you are just too damn stupid to understand your sad idiocy.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
And everyone notes that John is unable to explain why it isn't pertinent.
As I said, he doesn't want to debate.

It really doesn't need to be explained Drew. Your forum has been exposed. Why don't you explain how the Eiffel Tower is pertinent in this arena? You gave rules for evidence that you think apply to the origin/always was of the universe. I know you have no such evidence. After pulling your teeth you posted nonsense about the Eiffel Tower. How many years do you plan on posting irrelevant nonsense attempting to duck debate. Only the most bigoted are fooled. I will be here to watch this charade play out.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Silly Borg and his nothing. My claims have all proved true. For instance you have no accountable position. No evidence. No rational/logical way to quantify evidence in this arena. Many more as well. Care to show otherwise Lmao?

Define your nothing and I will debate it vs a prime mover. You loons don't expect people to debate nothing do you? Have you any answers for your incessant hypocrisy?

A forum of NOTHING is incredibly ridiculous for rational thinkers. Stop wasting my time. No accountable position. No debate.

And everyone notes that John is unable to explain why it isn't pertinent.
As I said, he doesn't want to debate.

John wrote:

It really doesn't need to be explained

Yes, it does.

John wrote:

Why don't you explain how the Eiffel Tower is pertinent in this arena?

It's an entity whose existence can be supported by evidence. Unlike your "prime mover" (the one you're afraid to produce any evidence for).

John wrote:

You gave rules for evidence that you think apply to the origin/always was of the universe. I know you have no such evidence.

I'm not the one here making a claim as to how the Universe originated (even assuming that it did). So why would I need evidence when I'm not making a claim.

*You*, on the other hand, have claimed that the Universe was created by a "prime mover", but so far, you can produce *zero* evidence to support that claim.

Now, rational people know that claims require evidence, and they also know that if there is no claim, no evidence is required.

You don't seem to know that. Why is that?

My quick glance saw nothing again Drew. Tell me you aren't at least a little embarrassed. I'm comfortable people realize your Eiffel Tower is quite silly and irrelevant in regards to evidence in this arena. Might as well have said car, train, or pavillion.

You also lie about what I have and haven't claimed. My claims that you are a hypocrite with no evidence has been supported. My claim that there is more evidence for a prime mover than any other possibility you want to be accountable to awaits. Your play.

Let me guess.....NOTHING.

All because I had the audacity to ask what you believes LOL.

John wrote:

My quick glance saw nothing again

Your "quick glances" are no different than long stares, since you're unwilling to debate.

John wrote:

I'm comfortable people realize your Eiffel Tower is quite silly and irrelevant in regards to evidence in this arena.

And what "arena" is that, John? You can't seem to identify the "arena".

John wrote:

You also lie about what I have and haven't claimed.

Really? So you're telling us that you *haven't* claimed that there is (or was) a "prime mover"?

John wrote:

My claims that you are a hypocrite with no evidence has been supported.

Funny that you can't seem to demonstrate any "hypocrisy" on my part. Meanwhile, I've repeatedly demonstrated that you claim to be willing to be debate, and yet when asked to do so, you fail.

That is the very definition of "hypocrisy", is it not?

John wrote:

My claim that there is more evidence for a prime mover than any other possibility...

"More" than something means that there must be *some*, yet you can't seem to produce any evidence for a "prime mover". Where is your evidence, John?

Missing in action? Just like your ethics?

Oh brother. Well, Drew brought his nothing for us to ponder again. Are you so lost you don't know what this arena as it pertains to evidence is? We are years in, but suddenly you are perplexed.

I am telling you I don't debate nothing. I am telling you I am.prepared to debate what I consider evidence for a prime mover vs any other position of accountability you can't seem to explain.

I'm also telling you that your nothing is pretty pathetic. Your forum is the nothing I said it was. Your rules for evidence have resulted in no evidence. Why don't we just debate what we believe and let the merits of our cases stand on their own. Ahh, yes back to the original question. What do you believe Drew? Now, feel free to question what subject I am.referring to or some other excuse. The bottom line is you are an absolute hypocrite to have ruled out a prime mover with no basis. Everything is ruled out for you then as nothing meets your evidentiary standards.

How do you quantify the following possibilities for the universe: prime mover, always was, something from nothing. Go ahead. Show your math as well hypocrite.

There is no reason or logic in your nothing. Only an agenda. You fight awful hard, though ineptly for something you can't even define for us. How embarrasing that this is an atheism forum. You loons have had years and tens of thousands to answer basic questions. You choose not to debate because you have no valid foundation to do so.

Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

John wrote:

I don't have any proof of god or that I'm not a liar, and so I spam the forum every now and again in the blind hope that someone equally stupid to me will become indosctrinated by my garbage.

Correct.

John wrote:

I am telling you I am.prepared to debate what I consider evidence for a prime mover vs any other position of accountability you can't seem to explain.

Great, tell us what that evidence is. Our accountable position is that no evidence has been produced. So far, you're helping our position each and every time you avoid producing any evidence.

John wrote:

The bottom line is you are an absolute hypocrite to have ruled out a prime mover with no basis.

I've ruled it out on the basis that no evidence has been produced to support its existence. And you're obviously unable to change that, since you can't seem to produce any evidence. Heck, you can't even seem to produce what *you* consider to be evidence (you haven't told us what your standards for evidence are, so for all we know, your evidence is that you hear little voices in your head).

John wrote:

How do you quantify the following possibilities for the universe: prime mover, always was, something from nothing.

They are all *possible*. But until evidence is produced for one, then there is no rationale for actually selecting one. You seem to want to select a position without having any evidence to justify that choice. Why? Because it makes you feel good?