Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are Atheists more honest than Christians?

Now your writing is becoming even more incoherent.

AS, I am anything but lazy and I think you know I am not dishonest. I am holding your feet to the fire in an extended manner to make patently obvious your dodging of and on the subject and your avoidance of candor. Your "body on this subject" contains nothing whatsoever that will offer the proof you need and, apparently, cannot produce. Emptiness.

If you wrote the simple and conclusive "proof" before, merely copy and paste it for us. Otherwise, you fail - again. Waiting, for just a while. What do you have?

The "proof" is simple.

Show me where any theist has met their burden of proof regarding the existence of a god or god(s).

Regarding ISIS, for good men to do evil deeds requires religion.

The rest of your post is again, just assertions with no evidence.

So paint all religion with the same brush. As noted, atheism is a religion.

Isis does their deeds because they deny and fight against submission to the God of Abraham, The Creator. Moslems worship the god of Abram, the man who God later blessed and then renamed Abraham.

Didnt you read my body of truth, He will allow no proof. Did you tell your father on earth show you proof. You deserve nothing. He offers you all for only faith, as a little child believes in its mother.

Saying Atheist is a religion, is like saying bald is a hair color.

So one again, you admit that you have NO evidence.

If you god is unable to manifest himself in this world in a manner sufficient to prove any evidence for his existence, it's the same as him not existing at all.

As for your "body of truth", that's nothing more them some blathering from a book for which you have not yet established a reason to believe.

Bald is no hair, and atheism is no truth. Thus, it is a lie. Thus its proponents are liars purveying the biggest lie. That of leading others from life to death.

Good night.

You are the one who cares more about faith then truth.

Just when I thought Eyeball had first place in the Dumbass category all sewn up, CCCC starts gaining on the backstretch. He tried this 3 yr old child 'logic' on another thread awhile ago...'if I cover my eyes and can't see you then you dont exist!'

Apparently too many years teaching elementary kids makes you think anyone will buy your bullschit without question...

Mojo - you will get nowhere throwing intended insults and trying ad hominem attacks. The weak do that when they have trapped themselves. Much smarter and better folks than you have tried that and failed miserably.

Sometimes the forthrightness of childlike logic - simple but accurate and deadly - exposes phonies. Neither you nor AS has proved anything about your professed status. Apparently both of you fail to see the vacuous - even ludicrous - condition you create when you pretend that simply declaring yourself an atheist proves that you are such a thing and that such a thing exists. Your declaration is worth zip in the realm of evidence, proof and truth.

And, for Antelope Sniper to try to pretend that the possible absence of proof for one thing (God's existence) can in any way prove the existence of another thing (atheism) is really juvenile.

I learned in 3rd grade that when phonies find that their words and manipulations will not work, and when exposed and desperate, they will resort to all that is left - name-calling and vulgarity. How do things look from down there in the pit?

Is the OP being condescending?

I had thought when I was chastised for being a "driving away" force that maybe I was out of line on my trolling comment.

Guess not.

Not by a long shot.

AS,

No, the evidence of God’s existence is all around us. YOU just choose not to believe it. Others look at the evidence and see proof of God. YOU choose to ignore and disbelieve.

You are not alone in this either. I have wondered about Judas. He was right there with Jesus, saw the miracles, heard him speak and yet chose to betray Him. How could that be? There are many examples of people in this world and in the Bible who have been confronted with God and confronted with the reality of God and yet reject and go their own way.

So, the evidence? The universe, the earth, the laws of nature and all of creation. It did not just happen, It was created. The human body, DNA and the fact that we are self aware and intelligent (well the most part) beings.

Also, it is clear that not only does God exist but HE does pursue us. God seems to be on my mind all the time. He is there on your mind. I;d wager there is not a human on earth that has not considered himself and his relationship to “god.”

You made mention that God has not competently revealed himself to us. Not so at all. He came to earth to SHOW us Himself in the form of Jesus and the there is all the revelation one needs right there in the bible.

But, you have set yourself up as the “Judge” and choose to reject. There is nothing new or novel in that.

It seems to me that God pursues and many reject. Seems that HE wants those of voluntarily choose to follow Him. Those that respond to the call.

You have not, at least not yet.

So be it.

TF

TF, Every last one of the "proofs" you mention that are all around us, are explained with a natural model that does not require the intervention of a God. In the words of LaPlace, I have no need for that Hypothesis. What you actually presented is just an argument from personal incredulity.

As for Judas, according to the Gospel of Judas, he just did what Jesus asked of him. According to your dogma, without Jesus getting caught, there could of been no bloody human sacrifice. Or, he's just a common plot device you would find in any fictional drama.

As for our laws of nature, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

You claim it is clear that God exists, but all you've offered is one fallacious argument, not exactly evidence.

As for your assertion that God descended to earth as Jesus, where is your evidence? None of the Gospels are eye witness accounts. None are signed, we don't even know who wrote them. In addition, all that we have is copies of copies of copies, with the first full gospels dating to the 4th century CE. The earliest post card size fragment of a gospel dates to no earlier then 120 CE, at least 90 years after the alleged events, and could date 30-40 years later. Matthew is just a rewrite of Mark, and Luke is a rewrite of Matthew, and John was cobbled together from the writings of several different authors.

The gospels take the form of common drama's written at the time, and borrow plot lines from earlier dying/rising cults, and story lines from the Old Testament.

In the original 6 or 7 non-forged Pauling Epistles, Paul never makes a clear reference to an earthly Jesus nor places him on this earth.

In addition, there is no independent non-biblical corroboration of the gospels from contemporary historians of the day.

As for "judging", yes, unlike you, I choose to use my reason to evaluate the quality of the evidence for the claims that you make, and find the sum total of the evidence is zero.

How do you know Epicurisious said that?

I guess you are not familiar with the Herculaneum Papyri. This is a large library that was preserved during the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD. The library was from the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. From this we have large parts of Epicurus's Magnum Opus "On nature", and as I recall 3 of his personal letters, and other works by his personal followers.

Much of what we know about him comes from only two later sources, which could be used as an argument against his historicity. However, unlike a historical Jesus, and a literal crucifixion, it doesn't matter if Epicurus actually existed or not. It doesn't change the philosophical teachings that arose from the school bearing his name one bit. Concepts such as the Atom rise and fall on their own merit, not on divine revelation, or an argument from authority.

You cannot say the same for Christianity. For most believers, without a literal Jesus and a literal crucifixion, the entire faith evaporates.

WOW!

That is possibly the most inane, rambling, callow and puerile 'argument' I have ever had the misfortune to read (of course, I don't watch FOX or CNN or hang out at Brietbart or Alex Jones so maybe it's more common than I think...)


I understand that your desperately trying to concoct a 'intellectual' argument to prove something, but all of your posts (except the first) are just Renfield level ravings...and you're fooling absolutely no one.


Can't wait for your next non sequitur, non-parallel 'hypothesis'!