Atheists on the march in America

John wrote:

Does a bang need a banger?

Doesn't the "banger" need a creator? & even IF (& that is a huge unsupportable IF)a "banger" does exist, what makes you think a bronze age mythical deity had anything to do with it?

John wrote:

Does a bang need a banger? You are skipping steps.
Why do some things require evidence now and others don't?
You get to pick and choose. I think not. We disagree on what is evidence anyway so define your accountable position. I asked this simple request years ago. Why do you have no evidence of your nothing.
Rose, I barely read the nonsense you post to avoid the obvious. You are a bigot that doesn't know crap. Even your rationale is transparent.
Thanks for repeating your disbelief coward. There may be newcomers here. I am glad they get to see atheism is nothing and easily exposed.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe.

Quit dodging.
Do you agree with this statement or not?
If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.

Stump John, ask him to debate.

You quit dodging loon. I've asked you multiple questions you have no answer for. The questions are of the type that out you as a bigot and hypocrite.

This is an atheism forum. What do you believe? I don't care if you believe in God or not. If you want to compare what we consider evidence let's do it. You wont. You can't. Your contention I am ducking a debate is ludicrous. You have nothing to debate.

I have agreed to debate a prime mover vs any other position. You do nothing but reiterate disbelief.

Again, you have no evidence that meets your rules for evidence in this arena. You do not have a formula for how to quantify evidence. You just decided specifically to rule out a prime mover because of an agenda. You don't see evidence for anything in this arena, thus you refusal to debate.

Sure must get old lying to yourself and others.

Stump Rose! Ask her what she believes. True science that is repeatable and observable.

John wrote:

You quit dodging loon. I've asked you multiple questions you have no answer for.

Such as?

John wrote:

The questions are of the type that out you as a bigot and hypocrite.
This is an atheism forum. What do you believe? I don't care if you believe in God or not.

Then why ask me what I believe?

John wrote:

If you want to compare what we consider evidence let's do it. You wont. You can't. Your contention I am ducking a debate is ludicrous. You have nothing to debate.

Yes I do.
Again, do you agree with this statement or not?
If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.

Notice, with this statement I'm not arguing for nor against the existence of god. Just saying that if an all knowing, all powerful being who cares about us, listens to us and is involved in our lives, there is evidence of his existence. Also, I'm not saying what does or doesn't count as evidence, not at this point. After you answer this simple yes or no question, we can continue.
So come on...debate!

John wrote:

I have agreed to debate a prime mover vs any other position. You do nothing but reiterate disbelief.

My position is there is no prime mover.

John wrote:

Again, you have no evidence that meets your rules for evidence in this arena. You do not have a formula for how to quantify evidence. You just decided specifically to rule out a prime mover because of an agenda. You don't see evidence for anything in this arena, thus you refusal to debate.
Sure must get old lying to yourself and others.
Stump Rose! Ask her what she believes. True science that is repeatable and observable.

Zzzzz....

John wrote:

..... True science that is repeatable and observable.

That must be true, we have repeatable and observable evidence you are an idiot.

John, you're getting really, really boring. I don't know what your motivation is, maybe you just want to see if you can outlast everyone. But it's clear you have no interest in debate. So, from now on, if I reply to you at all, I'll just point people towards post #63374

Unless you decide to actually debate.

John wrote:

Does a bang need a banger? You are skipping steps..

Nope. Bangers require mash and gravy.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Such as?
<quoted text>
Then why ask me what I believe?
<quoted text>
Yes I do.
Again, do you agree with this statement or not?
If god exists, there is evidence of his existence.
Notice, with this statement I'm not arguing for nor against the existence of god. Just saying that if an all knowing, all powerful being who cares about us, listens to us and is involved in our lives, there is evidence of his existence. Also, I'm not saying what does or doesn't count as evidence, not at this point. After you answer this simple yes or no question, we can continue.
So come on...debate!
<quoted text>
My position is there is no prime mover.
<quoted text>
Zzzzz....

-Seriously? Go back to page one. You have no shame.
- To prove you are simply a bigot who attempts to marginalize a specific belief not based on evidence, or formulas, or logic, but an ugly agenda.
You are arguing against the existence of a higher power. Don't change your tune now. We can debate when you provide something to debate. It is your forum. I believe there is more evidence for a prime mover than any other option. My accountable position has been clear. You have nothing but irrelevant noise.
Please point to your post. It reinforces my contentions. All this time and you still haven't been able to differentiate between belief and disbelief.
Another loon bows out; nothing in hand!
Stump a forum of antitheists! Ask them what they believe.
-

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 60,880 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

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 60,880 posts to show otherwise.
Stump an antitheist! Ask them what they believe. True science that is repeatable and observable.

So no proof that you're not a creationist liar yet then?

Just checking john.

Most atheists agree that the likelihood of our being the only intelligent life in the universe, is mathematically impossible. Yet, even though there's no proof that that's the case, they believe it.

It's not mathematically impossible, just mathematically unfeasible. Which is the consensus. There's a large difference in impossible and unfeasible.

Isaac Asimov wrote:

It's not mathematically impossible, just mathematically unfeasible. Which is the consensus. There's a large difference in impossible and unfeasible.

That's the most impotent stab at equivocation I've ever seen.

mdbuilder wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the most impotent stab at equivocation I've ever seen.

I'm pretty sure the definition of "equivocation" isn't ... De-constructing a straw man argument.
Your post was/is simply a childish attempt at belittlement.

More nothing from the atheists for all to see.

John wrote:

More nothing from the atheists for all to see.

We're waiting for your something to show up... Guess you just can't admit you lied about it.

Or present ANY evidence that you aren't a liar.

I'm just chillaxing, relaxing, actin' all cool. Shootin' some b-ball outside of the school.

Also, I'm laughing quite boisterously at the lack of evidence John has offered to do anything to further his side of the debate he's been dead-locked in for the last 60,891 pages. He's been offered dozens of points from our side, and has offered not a single point from his own side, and has offered nothing that clearly and accurately denounces the points from the opposition either.

To make him stop repeating one of his many, horrible lines, however.

Quantifiable Evidence:

Proof that can be seen, felt, smelt, heard, or tasted. A lack of meeting even a single one of these criteria results in disqualification from the category of "evidence", and moots the point entirely.

As such, evidence for Evolution can be found in the genetic similarities of varying animal and plant species on the planet, in which it has been proven that one thing has constantly evolved from another thing, and that such an action is still occurring naturally today.

Evidence for the Big Bang is found in the tracking of Matter through this solar system, a dozen other solar systems, and the known Universe as a whole. Wherein it is clear that the rapid expansion of the Universe began on a central apex - discovered by mathematically tracking the particles pathways.

Evidence for a God/Prime Mover: Blind faith...oh wait, that's not actually evidence of anything except the frailty of the human mind.

Isaac Asimov wrote:

Also, I'm laughing quite boisterously at the lack of evidence John has offered to do anything to further his side of the debate he's been dead-locked in for the last 60,891 pages. He's been offered dozens of points from our side, and has offered not a single point from his own side, and has offered nothing that clearly and accurately denounces the points from the opposition either.
To make him stop repeating one of his many, horrible lines, however.
Quantifiable Evidence:
Proof that can be seen, felt, smelt, heard, or tasted. A lack of meeting even a single one of these criteria results in disqualification from the category of "evidence", and moots the point entirely.
As such, evidence for Evolution can be found in the genetic similarities of varying animal and plant species on the planet, in which it has been proven that one thing has constantly evolved from another thing, and that such an action is still occurring naturally today.
Evidence for the Big Bang is found in the tracking of Matter through this solar system, a dozen other solar systems, and the known Universe as a whole. Wherein it is clear that the rapid expansion of the Universe began on a central apex - discovered by mathematically tracking the particles pathways.
Evidence for a God/Prime Mover: Blind faith...oh wait, that's not actually evidence of anything except the frailty of the human mind.

It won't work, John's a chronic liar. He'll come back and pretend he isn't a liar again, just wait.