Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

In your mistaken opinion. None of which is what I said or intended. Not so much a straw man as a straw elephant in the making.

 

It is obvious that this poster only posts to see what he posts and cannot understand why others call him on his BS.

He tries to set up the discussion on only his terms and claims any input that is not preapproved by him just has to be false.

A true religious bigot who is not willing to consider that others do not agree with him.

 

You just failed at destroying. You continued the weasel routine. You will not debate ideas, for you must have Matt to destroy. LOL I am not interested in debating his ideas. But I do notice weasels when I see them. So sir, I expect you never to debate any other ideas presented on this forum, unless you can debate the person in the news who expressed these ideas. Using your own words. Which ends up being the 800 pound ape in the dark corner. I see him, while you imagine a straw elephant.

 

Why are you so intent on claiming that "everyone" agrees with you when the vast majority of posts here deny the truth of your posts?

Speaking of lack of comprehension, you are the very definition of the term.

BTW, if you were an atheist you would realize how stupid your posts truly are.

 

The poster only wanted to debate a set of ideas which seemed rational and logical. I thought that is what this forum does, on all sorts of subjects? A house of ideas which are debated, argued over, etc. But now ideas are non debatable? Remember, so few ideas presented here and debated are owned by the author of a thread. But this one is different? LOL Get outta town. Sounds like rubbish to me. Smelly rubbish.

Why not just say, I do not want to debate this, and move along? Instead of this whining, and posturing, and acting like only the original author of these ideas can be debated? If that were the case and people followed that, this forum would close its doors.

 

I think you should give up this angle of attack, kokomojojo. I pinned William Rea down with this post

and he still refused to accept the logical equivalence of disbelief and belief in not. It's a fruitless road to go down.

By the way, I was a believer and I proved to myself using logic that God cannot exist, but so far no one else buys my proof. Which is fine, I have no desire to be a proselytizer for atheism. But to say that no one can prove God doesn't exist isn't entirely true, I did, at least for myself.

 

Bring it on, if you can.

 

Because it is is irrelevant. I am not interested in a detour up your particular dead end, there are too many dead ends already.

 

Yes, people who believe in god do it all the time, now where is your proof you know who your wife is ****ing? Rumours are not nice when used as religion has used the rumour of gods. Especially when the rumour is speculative, has no basis in fact and is harmful. Now tell me what it is like to be asked to prove a rumour is not true?

 

and the beat goes on, riding on the good ship da'nile

I would be interested in looking at your proof claiming the nonexistance of God however

 

And there we go, the switch of the burden of proof.

 

nah you just dont comprehend the difference between a negative and a negative assertion, I used LOGIC to change it to a positive, precisely what a judge would do to you in court, now the burden of proof is on you.

 

but, you can't actually know if your wife is sleeping with someone else, and you don't know a god.

 

The poster does not want to debate ideas, he wants only his statement to be agreed with.

Your agreeing with indicates just how "smelly" your claims are.

 

It would seem that you need to look up the definition of "logic". You lack it in spades.

 

You do realize that it takes at least to debate and the poster in question rejects any idea other than his own and refuses to debate other than to run screaming into a closet where he feels safe, right?

 

Bring what on? All I did was point out an obvious absurdity, fueled by an ego. Who insists on winning...something.

I do not care to address the ideas presented by the author of this thread. And it seems that those that might care, are just incapable of doing so for whatever reason. So, they cleverly weasel out of it. While not liking it if called out on it. Yet if I were an interested party, I would debate the ideas presented. Just like it was something trump said that I did not agree with. Ideas, statements are to be debated, or not, but weaseling out of it is dirty pool. Running away and then acting like no one is running away. LOL And then, one says to bring it on.

He offered up statements, ideas, which should have been fodder for debate. So don't debate those ideas, and call my claims smelly. Just another weasel who obviously cannot debate those ideas. Just admit it. Stop the slithering.

 

LOL. So do all modern liberals incapable of dissecting the argument presented? SO, just call it stupid? LOL With out addressing any logic involved, or lack of logic? Another weaseling fail.

Hell you guys should just admit you lack the intellect to debate it. Oh, but so easy to call call it stupid, right?

 

I didn't force you to intercede in this Mr. InternetToughGuy so, if you have a point bring it on, come on, finish the job that you believe that Mr JustAskingQuesitons started.

 

Yup, politicised religions strikes again. Anyone prepared to abuse the sincere religious beliefs of others for the sake of having a pop at 'teh librul bogeyman' deserves the god that they actually worship.

 

Oh yeh like Stalin he was a realy atheist winner!

 

I am still laughing about your running away from Matt Slick you know.

 

We are not in court, there are no judges and the burden of proof lies with the head chopping, genital mutilating, gay bashing, bomb planting, rational theist's! What price LOGIC now.

 

yes, typical,anything bs story to throw logic and reason right out the window and pretend you are using scientific method LOL

 

Another false claim by the master of false claims, where do I pretend to be using the scientific method? Logic and reason does not dictate you fly into buildings because "god told me"! Lets really look at what you are defending as being more rational than atheism.