Atheists have no answers

a reply to: TzarChasm

this is the part where you magically transform into a hypocrite.

You believe in magically transforming hypocrites but refuse
to accept the possibility of a supeme being because he hasn't
made your roll call? You don't get out much do you?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

this is the part where you magically transform into a hypocrite.

You believe in magically transforming hypocrites but refuse
to accept the possibility of a supeme being because he hasn't
made your roll call? You don't get out much do you?

you are right, there is nothing magical about the transformation at all. i was just being funny about a very serious observation. but go ahead and keep making snide comments to cover the fact that your answers are no better than an atheist. 30 pages and all we learned from you is that you are a sore charlatan.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Thank you for tuning in.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

this is the part where you magically transform into a hypocrite.

You believe in magically transforming hypocrites but refuse
to accept the possibility of a supeme being because he hasn't
made your roll call? You don't get out much do you?

you are right, there is nothing magical about the transformation at all. i was just being funny about a very serious observation. but go ahead and keep making snide comments to cover the fact that your answers are no better than an atheist. 30 pages and all we learned from you is that you are a sore charlatan.

We have learned a lot. Thats the problem with only wanting to learn what you already know. It's why I think atheist are the least objective in this argument.

A theist is allowed to doubt and doubt is the foundation of faith. That doubt or faith is a motivator to find answers. There is more freedom to be objective and pursue answers where ever they may lead.

You however are aligned with a philosophical ideology that holds hostage your objectivity. Its motivation is to fix not discover. You pursuit is in one direction.

Athiest can lean on science and scream super objectivity all you want but your still trapped, unable to fully embrace the glorious objectivity of the sciences.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Here you go TC tackle this group.

Are the Vedas unverifiable?
What do Scholars say?
And what do they say about scripture?
What have scholars verified about Christ?
Do you even care what scholars say?

I don't think it's so much that atheists don't have any answers. It's that they don't have any questions, at least not any that religious people haven't been asking for millennia. I suppose they'd say they have come up with better answers to some of those age old questions then religious people have. But I don't think that's true, or maybe only true from a very limited perspective.

You know atheism is parasitic, it can't really exist without theism. I think that's why you see this push by the "new atheists" to force a different definition for atheism, a mere absence of belief, or some such ridiculous notion to that effect. They want to pretend that they exist independently of theism, to define for themselves some significance independent of theism, but of course they really can't and I think most of them will eventually find that direction unsatisfying.

There are already rumblings about the ridiculous and dishonest nature of defining atheism as "an absence of belief" rather than a positive belief among some of the more subtle, intelligent and honest atheists.

Of course it will take the Hee Haw Jamboree variety of atheists a while to catch up.

a reply to: imwilliam

Lol, what a load of faith clinging #.
Thanks for the chuckle

a reply to: grainofsand

Lol, what a load of faith clinging #.
Thanks for the chuckle

Thank you for illustrating my point:

Of course it will take the Hee Haw Jamboree variety of atheists a while to catch up.

a reply to: imwilliam

Excellent post

a reply to: imwilliam

Which silly point?
My lack of belief in gods being dependent on theism? Lol absolutely ridiculous.
I don't believe in pixies, does my lack of belief depend on others believing in them, is my lack of belief a position of faith?
Ridiculous, and you theists almost shame yourselves with your desperation to equate a lack of belief with a faith that gods don't exist.

I don't believe in any gods.
I do not assert gods do not exist just there is nothing to draw me towards believing they do.
My position requires zero faith, but a theists position absolutely requires faith.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: imwilliam

Lol, what a load of faith clinging #.
Thanks for the chuckle

Wow! I thought you might do better but it
seems your hate is more important? But you also proved my OP
correct at the same time.

My position requires zero faith, but a theists position absolutely requires faith.

You must have faith that scholars and archaeology are wrong?

a reply to: randyvs

Oh behave with the lame victim hate slur.
I hate nobody.
You cry hate when you have no reasoned argument.
It's pathetic.

*edit*
I can call an argument # without feeling any hate, are you unable to do the same or do you hate every time you disagree?
I don't.

a reply to: grainofsand

Sounded hateful to be sure no crying just an observation.

a reply to: randyvs

You bleat hate every time as a lame distraction.
It's pathetic and the last resort of one who has no reasoned argument.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: randyvs

You bleat hate every time as a lame distraction.
It's pathetic and the last resort of one who has no reasoned argument.

Are the Vedas unverifiable?
What do Scholars say?
And what do they say about scripture?
What have scholars verified about Christ?
Do you even care what scholars say?

Answers?

a reply to: randyvs

The alleged truth of the vedas is unverifiable.
If the Vedas were able to be verified then by default it would prove that Christianity is bull#.
How do you square that circle?

a reply to: randyvs


In my experience, I've noticed that hatefulness and anger are characteristic of those who identify themselves as atheists and have arrived at their position through a combination of faulty reasoning, false analogies, and just generally sloppy thinking. They're the ones I refer to as the Hee Haw Jamboree variety of atheist.

But, again in my experience, agnostics tend to be amicable. Someone once said that atheists were just agnostics with personality disorders. I don't know about that, but agnostics do seem to me to exhibit the mannerisms and attitudes that most atheists only pretend to.

You know it's telling to see GS react so passionately to my assertion that his position on whether or not God exists is something other than mere "unbelief" . . . and to contrast that with his statement about the existence or non-existence of pixies.

Clearly his lack of belief in pixies is different and held with a different level of passion than his "lack of belief" as he calls it in the existence of God. I think his reaction demonstrates that his pixies/God analogy is a false one.

Anyway, fun thread Randy.

a reply to: grainofsand

How do you square that circle?

The five questions are the circle.

If the Vedas were able to be verified then by default it would prove that Christianity is bull#.

Then I guess Christianity hasn't been proven to be bullsh1t which could
indicate you saying it is to be a hateful, prejudiced comment?

a reply to: imwilliam

Anyway, fun thread Randy.

Yes it is.

a reply to: imwilliam

Yes a fun thread absolutely
Believing in stuff which cannot be verified, and criticising people who don't believe in the unverifiable lol.
Funny as #.