Is the FAITH of the Atheist greater than the FAITH of the Christian?

JulesKorngold

Does an Atheist Need Faith?

No, an atheist does not need faith.

• Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.
• Faith is typically defined as belief in something without proof.

Therefore, by definition, atheism does not require faith.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@JulesKorngold ; Atheists overwhelmingly believe in Darwinism/Evolution to explain the supernatural World that encompasses us; therefore, the atheist possesses both incredible "belief" and "faith."

just_sayin

Atheists believe there is no God.  That is a belief.  Can they prove this?  No it is a truth claim taken in faith.  

Many atheists believe that everything came from nothing.  Many atheists believe that the universe once fit into zero space.  How much can you fit in zero space?  A whole universe according to the faith of atheists.  When asked to explain this you might hear the word 'quantum' bandied about like somebody yelling 'magic'.  When asked to explain how so many naturalistic laws can be broken, the atheist will pout and say 'well you don't know either.'

When asked to explain the low entropy of the initial universe's conditions, and the 260 other finely tuned factors needed to create a universe where life is possible, some atheists will say 'it must have just happened that way'.  Yet the odds of such a universe are so astronomical that it is fair to say it is zero percent chance of happening.  When asked to consider if it is not more probable that an intelligence guided the universe to meet the 261 improbable finely tuned known conditions necessary rather than a zero percent chance of randomness, the atheist will cling to a zero percent chance of randomness as the solution.

The atheist believes life came from non-life.  Yet, when asked to demonstrate this or explain the process, the atheist cannot provide the answer.  After over 100 years and millions of failed experiments, atheists continue to cling to a belief that the weight of experiment and science suggest is not possible.

When the atheist is asked to explain how something as complex as DNA code could come about, and to give any example where complex code is created by random processes, he has no response.  There are many examples we can point to where code comes from a coder.  But when asked to explain how DNA arose or how randomness could create complex code the atheist just takes it on faith that it happened, even though the odds are so astronomical that they are considered zero.

When examples of miracles are mentioned, and documented evidence, eye witnesses, video, medical records, news stories, or court certified testimony that was scrutinized under oath with intense questioning, the atheist will ignore the evidence and in some cases even claim such evidence does not exist, even when there are literally 1000 pages of documentation.  

I just don't have the faith to believe everything came from nothing, that 261 finely tuned parameters just happened to all work out, that life came from non-life, and that code came from chaos.  But that is just what the atheist clings to.  I doubt any amount of evidence could convince them otherwise.  A guy whose leg was amputated could literally have his leg grow back overnight and there be court testimony from the doctors who amputated the leg, and those that verified the leg afterwards, from doctors and professors who interrogated the man, with certified eye witness testimony that was cross examined in court, with medical records to back it all up, and the atheist would say 'there ain't no evidence'.  

While I can admire the extreme lengths the atheist will go to to try and maintain their beliefs in the face of opposing facts and evidence, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: From My Chatbot

No, atheists do not believe there are no gods.

This is a common misconception. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't involve making a positive assertion about the existence or non-existence of deities.

In essence, atheists don't believe in gods, but they don't necessarily claim that gods definitely don't exist.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: From My Chatbot

Evidence for Evolution

The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines. Here are some of the key lines of evidence:

Fossil Record

• Transitional fossils: These show intermediate forms between different groups of organisms, demonstrating gradual change over time.
• Extinction: The fossil record documents the disappearance of numerous species, supporting the idea that life forms change or become extinct.

Comparative Anatomy

• Homologous structures: These are structures with similar underlying structures but different functions (e.g., human arm, bat wing, whale flipper), suggesting a common ancestor.
• Vestigial structures: These are remnants of structures that had a function in ancestors but no longer serve a purpose (e.g., appendix in humans).

Embryology

• Comparative embryology: Many organisms share similar developmental stages, indicating a shared evolutionary history.

Molecular Biology

• DNA and genetic code: Similarities in DNA sequences between different species suggest common ancestry.
• Protein comparisons: Amino acid sequences in proteins can also be compared to show evolutionary relationships.

Biogeography

• Geographic distribution of species: The distribution of organisms on Earth often reflects their evolutionary history and the movement of tectonic plates.

Direct Observation

• Artificial selection: Humans have selectively bred organisms for desired traits, demonstrating rapid evolutionary change.
• Antibiotic resistance: Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is a real-time example of evolution in action.

This is just a brief overview of the evidence supporting evolution. Each of these areas provides substantial support for the theory, and together they form a compelling case.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: From My Chatbot

The scientific consensus is that there is no reliable, verifiable evidence for the supernatural.

While many people have personal experiences or beliefs that suggest the supernatural, these are often subjective and difficult to replicate or verify.

Here are some key points to consider:

• Lack of scientific consensus: No scientific organization or body of experts has endorsed the existence of the supernatural.
• Falsifiability: Claims about the supernatural often lack the ability to be tested or proven false, a fundamental requirement of scientific inquiry.
• Alternative explanations: Many seemingly supernatural events can be explained through natural phenomena, psychology, or even fraud.

It's important to approach claims of the supernatural with a critical and skeptical mindset. While it's fascinating to explore different perspectives, it's equally important to evaluate evidence carefully and consider alternative explanations.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: From My Chatbot

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't make any claims about the origin of life.

The question of how life originated is a complex one that scientists are still exploring. While there are various hypotheses, such as abiogenesis (the process by which life arises from non-living matter), there is no definitive scientific consensus yet.

It's essential to distinguish between atheism and scientific theories about the origin of life. Atheists are not required to have a specific belief on this topic.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw @JulesKorngold ;Atheists overwhelmingly believe in Darwinism/Evolution to explain the supernatural World that encompasses us; therefore, the atheist possesses both incredible "belief" and "faith."

Come on. Just one look at the eyes on that nit tells you that he is a sand which short of a picnic and has no idea of what he is talking about. Or may be he just wishes that he has some idea.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Atheist believe there is no God.

The word atheist literally means "without belief".

You are utterly 100% totally baked in the head.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Rickey

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Atheist and theist are two very slightly dissimilar labels given to two or more similar self propelled organic data processing units.

Slightly dissimilar formative programming will result in similar but variable outcomes.

For example:

Perhaps there is a GOD.

Or

Perhaps there isn't a GOD.

Or 

There definitely is a GOD

Or

There definitely isn't a GOD.

Or

GOD is an Orange

Or

GOD is a Lemon.

Though they would probably agree that GOD isn't an Lemon.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

No, atheists do not believe there are no gods.

This is a common misconception. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It doesn't involve making a positive assertion about the existence or non-existence of deities.

In essence, atheists don't believe in gods, but they don't necessarily claim that gods definitely don't exist.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:



Agnostic means:

You are using the wrong definition.  The word atheist - literally means (a) to negate/non  (theist) one who believes in God.  

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Evidence for Evolution

The theory of evolution is supported by a vast amount of evidence from various scientific disciplines. Here are some of the key lines of evidence:

Fossil Record

• Transitional fossils: These show intermediate forms between different groups of organisms, demonstrating gradual change over time.
• Extinction: The fossil record documents the disappearance of numerous species, supporting the idea that life forms change or become extinct.

Comparative Anatomy

• Homologous structures: These are structures with similar underlying structures but different functions (e.g., human arm, bat wing, whale flipper), suggesting a common ancestor.
• Vestigial structures: These are remnants of structures that had a function in ancestors but no longer serve a purpose (e.g., appendix in humans).

Embryology

• Comparative embryology: Many organisms share similar developmental stages, indicating a shared evolutionary history.

Molecular Biology

• DNA and genetic code: Similarities in DNA sequences between different species suggest common ancestry.
• Protein comparisons: Amino acid sequences in proteins can also be compared to show evolutionary relationships.

Biogeography

• Geographic distribution of species: The distribution of organisms on Earth often reflects their evolutionary history and the movement of tectonic plates.

Direct Observation

• Artificial selection: Humans have selectively bred organisms for desired traits, demonstrating rapid evolutionary change.
• Antibiotic resistance: Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics is a real-time example of evolution in action.

This is just a brief overview of the evidence supporting evolution. Each of these areas provides substantial support for the theory, and together they form a compelling case.

Isn't all of what you wrote predicated upon life having already begun?  I noticed you failed to provide evidence of chemical evolution - the necessary first step.  Surely, this should be the easiest step to prove.  It is just chemical reactions.  Yet, there are several major problems with chemical evolution that a hundred years and millions of experiments suggest are not possible.  If a God is needed for chemical evolution, then evolution would be proof of God, not proof there is no God.

From post https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176078/#Comment_176078

Argument Topic: Even when science says it doesn't work, trust me, science can make it work!!! - typical atheist

Atheists believe in abiogenesis.  But is this based on the science or on their faith in science?

Has anyone ever seen life start from non-life without intelligence guiding it? 

Nope.  

Has anyone solved the problem of there being no viable mechanism to generate a primordial soup?

No.  Atheists use to claim that the reducing atmosphere of the early universe was ideal for life.  We now know that was inaccurate.  The early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers.  As University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated that the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”

The desperate atheist sometimes appeals to panspermia to try and avoid this issue, but there is no evidence of incoming bacteria, and moon rocks are sterile.   Moon rocks should be teeming with bacteria and viruses if panspermia produced life.  The science suggests that is not the case.

Has anyone formed the 20 to 22 amino acids that comprise proteins naturally and all in the same environment as would be needed for life?

Nope.  The Miller experiment initially claimed 3 amino acids present, and a later review found traces of 3 other ones but in very low amounts.  The reason Miller found in was because he created a trap to prevent the naturalistic reactions that would have destroyed the amino acids created.  That's the catch, the same reactions that create some amino acids are just as likely to destroy them also.  So Miller created a trap to prevent nature from doing its thing.  When asked where in nature this kind of trap would exist, Miller said he had nothing.  Even granting the formation of 6 amino acids by Miller, only 10 have ever been created by naturalistic means from scratch without the use of cells.  

Since it appears forming polymers requires a dehydration synthesis, have they been created in a puddle naturally without human assistance like Darwin said they could be?

No.  The National Academy of Sciences states, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”  Water breaks down protein chains into amino acids, it doesn't go the opposite direction.  

Has the problem with the lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information been solved?

No.  A bacteria has about 100+ genes and is consider way to complex to be LUCA. In fact scientists claim that LUCA would have had to have about 355 genes to be the ancestor of all known life - even more complex than bacteria or viruses.  If you have code (say DNA) you need a means to translate it (say RNA).  No one has solved how these could chemically happen especially without one another.  While a virus can copy itself - it can't do it without being inside another cell.  

Does the RNA World Hypothesis have definitive evidence that it works?

No.  A serious problem is that even if you can figure out how to make proteins you need a system to self-replicate.  In fact Stanley Miller said "The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done."

Often scientists have postulated that RNA arose first - yet there are some massive problems with this issue.  1) RNA has never assemble by itself without human guided help.  And 2) RNA has not been shown to perform all the necessary cellular functions currently that are carried out by proteins, so it is inadequate by itself to perform these functions.  

Further, to explain the ordering of nucleotides in the first self-replicating RNA molecule, materialists must rely on sheer chance. But the odds of specifying, say, 250 nucleotides in an RNA molecule by chance is about 1 in 10150 — below the “universal probability bound,” a term characterizing events whose occurrence is at least remotely possible within the history of the universe.  (See See William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998).)

 Biochemists have spent decades struggling to get RNA to self-assemble or copy itself in the lab, and now concede that it needs a lot of help to do either.

As New York University chemist Robert Shapiro puts it "The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. … [The probability] is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck."

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Can the origin of the genetic code be adequately explained by unguided natural processes?

Nope.  DNA provides code for how to made a structure, while the RNA reads that and creates what the code calls for.  This system cannot exist unless both the genetic information and transcription/translation machinery are present at the same time, and unless both speak the same language.  

"[T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment."- Frank B. Salisbury, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” 

"Life’s three core processes are intertwined. Genes carry instructions for making proteins, which means proteins only exist because of genes. But proteins are also essential for maintaining and copying genes, so genes only exist because of proteins. And proteins—made by genes—are crucial for constructing the lipids for membranes. Any hypothesis explaining life’s origin must take account of this. Yet, if we suppose that genes, metabolism and membranes were unlikely to have arisen simultaneously, that means one of them must have come first and ‘invented’ the others.” - Jeff Miller

There are dozens more issues with abiogenesis, yet the faithful atheist claims 'even when science says its impossible, trust us, its possible for science."  Got to love the complete science denial and science of the gaps logic there.

JulesKorngold, if evolution occurred, then at least 10 miracles had to happen.  If 10 miracles happened, then that's evidence there is a God.  

MayCaesar

Saying that lack of belief in Christian god constitutes faith is like saying that my favorite dish is an empty plate.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Fredsnephew

God - Elohim (Genesis 1:1) proclaims Himself for you throughout the Canon and articulates the who, what, where, when, why, concerning our presence in Time but you don't believe...this makes you the devil's fool (Psalm 14:1).

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; As an atheist, you have not a clue...you're a vanishing vapor without substance of hope as you've opted to compromise and ally with the wickedness of this World through your rejection of Jesus as Messiah...you will surely lose mind, body, soul, in Hell due your arrogant self-righteousness.

Barnardot

@RickeyHoltsclaw ;you will surely lose mind, body, soul, in Hell due your arrogant self-righteousness. 

Well Jesus do me side ways. If that’s the case then you’re fate is going to be far worse and I just wouldn’t want to imagine what those devil bastards are going to do to you.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Unless the atheist is willing to admit miracles exist, it seems their faith is in vain.

Of course miracles exist. That's the wonder and the splendor, of the natural realm. It becomes exciting not knowing all the combinations of various physicality's  that must take place to produce the glory that nature alone so far has produced. And then finding some, not nearly all, answers and usually those are only in part.  Difference is the atheist have no need to assign that which is unknown and unevidenced to an unestablished, undetectable entity and/or intelligence.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Saying that lack of belief in Christian god constitutes faith is like saying that my favorite dish is an empty plate.

Having had Russian food, I understand why an empty plate is your favorite dish. 

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Saying that lack of belief in Christian god constitutes faith is like saying that my favorite dish is an empty plate.

I think you are missing the obvious.  If you make the assertion 'there is no God', then that is a faith claim.  You can not prove there is no God for you can not know and see everything in the universe.  The most you can claim is that you find the evidence lacking. 

When you say there is no God there are a set of sub-beliefs that follow that claim.  For example, you believe there are no supernatural events, therefore the creation of the universe, and the origin of life, must have an ultimate naturalistic origin.  This is where your faith kicks into overdrive.  When I ask the logical next question - "well then, how did nature create itself or how did life come from non-life?" the mantra of the atheist seems to be 'well, we don't know, but we know nature did it'.  But that's the point, you don't know that nature did it.  In fact, the problems with chemical evolution and the million plus failed experiments strongly suggest that intelligence is needed to create something as complex as DNA code.  Logically, intelligence is more likely to have created something that looks like code, than chaos.  You cling to your faith claim though, even though other options not only exist, but probabilistically are more likely to be the answer.  

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I will admit existence of one miracle: religious people in the 21st century. Based on what I know about human brain, an adult seriously believing in god in the year 2024 should not be a possibility - yet here we are. I have not made much progress in the analysis of this phenomenon, and all the approaches I have taken have led me to the conclusion that I stubbornly refuse to accept: that my assumption that every human is capable of critical thinking is false.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

When you say there is no God there are a set of sub-beliefs that follow that claim.  For example, you believe there are no supernatural events, therefore the creation of the universe, and the origin of life, must have an ultimate naturalistic origin.  This is where your faith kicks into overdrive.  When I ask the logical next question - "well then, how did nature create itself or how did life come from non-life?" the mantra of the atheist seems to be 'well, we don't know, but we know nature did it'.  But that's the point, you don't know that nature did it.

Logically, we see no evidence of a god. Atheism makes no further claims. It simply remains that way until it doesn't ;and empirical evidence of "supernatural events" does surface. Till then why assume there is a god?

The "mantra" is no one knows but we are learning about life, space and time and so far what we've learned comes from strictly natural evidence. Completely aware it's possible we stumble across some piece of information in the future that can change all we think we know at this time.

Your soliloquist style train of thought works for you cause no one can say its not a logical train of thought; but the logic is still flawed once you apply it to the people you're communicating to. Atheists state their positions far better than your misrepresentations. If someone says "natures wonderous works" they're typically not speaking in a religious type god sense or making claims of absolution concerning creation. That's the point, we don't know what transpired throughout the annals of time that brought the universe to the state we observe today. With the evidence we do have there is not sufficient reason to believe in any of the gods we know of orchestrated the whole thing. If you can learn and represent a realistic atheist position you would do better in debates.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

It is very frustrating at times. I have a theory. Something you've said here today can possibly be the reason someone else is enlightened in the future in some quiet alone time. Atheist faith?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

In his opening statement the OP literally wrote that "this unbelief is a belief". There is something about religious conditioning that makes people unable to see very obvious contradictions that should be clear to even a 3 year old child. They will say things like "A is not A" and not even flinch.

My own theory is that religion is inherently deep and mysterious, so religious people get into the habit of thinking that nothing is what it seems on the surface. If someone they respect says "A is not A", then, instead of immediately dismissing the statement as a contradiction, they will think, "Well, there must be something deep here that I am not aware of yet. I just need to study the Scripture harder to understand it". This is also how they manage to read a passage in the Bible as saying the exact opposite of its literal meaning. Everything is not what it seems.

It is poison. It completely obliterates one's ability to think logically. Curiously, it is stunningly similar to postmodernism according to which the reality is shaped by our perception of it, and there is no objective truth - there are just narratives. Perhaps we are dealing with something far more general than just a bunch of ideologies. It could be some universal self-deception mechanism humans employ when they are afraid of facing reality head-on. What do you think?

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I will admit existence of one miracle: religious people in the 21st century. Based on what I know about human brain, an adult seriously believing in god in the year 2024 should not be a possibility - yet here we are. I have not made much progress in the analysis of this phenomenon, and all the approaches I have taken have led me to the conclusion that I stubbornly refuse to accept: that my assumption that every human is capable of critical thinking is false.

So after you mocked the idea that atheist operate in faith, I showed that atheists do operate in faith because they can not explain naturalistically the origin of the universe nor how life came from non-life.  These tenets are to be taken on faith as having some ultimate naturalistic explanation.  And your rebuttal was to ignore that I shamed you publicly for your false claim that you have no faith, and to attack people of faith.

According to the University of North Carolina:  

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10^100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

So just the naturalistic probability of DNA forming a small strand that is functional is 1 in 10 to the 89,900.  For perspective there are about 10^80th power particles in the universe.  That number is miniscule compared to the odds of just a small functional DNA strand forming.  And mind you, we are late in the chemical evolution process when we get to building DNA, there are several steps before this that are just as astronomically impossible.  For example, getting all the enzymes necessary in the same location to produce the chemical reactions:

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."   - Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe,  Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).

These are just 2 issues with chemical evolution, and I don't even think these 2 are the difficult ones.  Yet, your faith believes complex code was made by chaos rather than by an intelligence.  Sorry May, you may be a man of faith, but I like to look at the numbers.  And they just don't support your position.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_Lying, the 2nd most Bible STU-PID pseudo-christian upon this Religion Forum,

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN QUOTE AGAIN: "So after you mocked the idea that atheist operate in faith, I showed that atheists do operate in faith because they can not explain naturalistically the origin of the universe nor how life came from non-life."

How many times do I have to easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership?!  

Whereas, YOU, along with your Bible Doofus cohort RickeyHoltsClaw,  have absolutely no business as hell-bound pseudo-christians in discussing anything about EVOLUTION!

This simple fact of my claim above is because you have to accept your comical biblical axiom that the genealogy of man and the universe in Luke 3:23-38, goes from the alleged Jesus character back to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years. Subsequent to the alleged Jesus until the present day is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that man and the universe is only approximately 6000 years old within your primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age bible. ......  ATHEISTS, STOP LAUGHING!

Zeus forbid if I should bring forth "DINOSAURS" that are millions upon millions of years old where your serial killer JEWISH god created man AND THE UNIVERSE approximately only 6000 years ago! Whoops, the simple math doesn't pan out, does it BIBLE FOOL!  ......  ATHEISTS, I SAID STOP LAUGHING AT JUST_LYING!

Then, if the biblical FACTS shown above aren't embarrassing enough for bible inept pseudo-christians like you, your serial killer Jesus as god created man from dust and woman from Adam's rib!  HUH?!  

"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (Genesis 2:7)

"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22)

....... ATHEISTS, FOR THE LAST TIME, QUIT LAUGHING AT OUR "BIBLE DOOFUS DUO" OF JUST_LYING AND RICKEYHOLTSCLAW FOR HAVING TO BELIEVE IN THEIR CREATION STORY OF 6000 YEARS AGO! 

.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

Just_Lying, the 2nd most Bible STU-PID pseudo-christian upon this Religion Forum,

YOUR DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN QUOTE AGAIN: "So after you mocked the idea that atheist operate in faith, I showed that atheists do operate in faith because they can not explain naturalistically the origin of the universe nor how life came from non-life."

How many times do I have to easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership?!  

Whereas, YOU, along with your Bible Doofus cohort RickeyHoltsClaw,  have absolutely no business as hell-bound pseudo-christians in discussing anything about EVOLUTION!

This simple fact of my claim above is because you have to accept your comical biblical axiom that the genealogy of man and the universe in Luke 3:23-38, goes from the alleged Jesus character back to Adam, a period of approximately 4000 years. Subsequent to the alleged Jesus until the present day is approximately 2000 years. This totals out that man and the universe is only approximately 6000 years old within your primitive thinking Bronze and Iron Age bible. ......  ATHEISTS, STOP LAUGHING!

Zeus forbid if I should bring forth "DINOSAURS" that are millions upon millions of years old where your serial killer JEWISH god created man AND THE UNIVERSE approximately only 6000 years ago! Whoops, the simple math doesn't pan out, does it BIBLE FOOL!  ......  ATHEISTS, I SAID STOP LAUGHING AT JUST_LYING!

Then, if the biblical FACTS shown above aren't embarrassing enough for bible inept pseudo-christians like you, your serial killer Jesus as god created man from dust and woman from Adam's rib!  HUH?!  

"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (Genesis 2:7)

"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man." (Genesis 2:21-22)

....... ATHEISTS, FOR THE LAST TIME, QUIT LAUGHING AT OUR "BIBLE DOOFUS DUO" OF JUST_LYING AND RICKEYHOLTSCLAW FOR HAVING TO BELIEVE IN THEIR CREATION STORY OF 6000 YEARS AGO! 

.

You are off topic - again.  Sigh, I've answered your question already in the past.  I've talked about the genealogies and the first 12 chapters of Genesis with you before.  But I tell you what, I'll once again walk you through the answer, after you find for me in the Bible where it says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  I'll wait.

Now stop trying to change the topic.  This debate is about the faith of atheists.  Stop being a coward and defend YOUR faith for a change.  Explain to me how nature created its self.  Explain to me how the universe popped into existence.  Explain to me how life popped into existence.  Explain to me why I should not believe that the universe and life were not created by intelligence, especially if you can't explain them.  Come on.  You are always firing off questions like a machine gun, but you never listen to the answers, and you never address the issues of the debate you bomb with your off topic comments.  Now, if you want a discussion, first defend your own faith, or be known as the ultimate coward of this site.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

 Explain to me how life popped into existence. 

What's honest? God did it or we don't know? Evidence suggest we don't know. No evidence suggest god did it. As that doesn't answer the same fundamental questions natural explanations fall short of explaining that you bring up repeatedly. The detail of the mechanisms that instigated processes and formed the universe and all it contains. "God did it" doesn't explain a thing. We don't know is the only honest answer.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_Lying, the 2nd most dumb Bible fool of this Religion Forum,


YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM THE TOPIC, BIBLE INEPT FOOL!:  "You are off topic - again.  Sigh,"

WRONG!  You spoke of EVOLUTION, therefore this is "ON TOPIC" with your bible ineptness relative to this topic!

As usual, you are running SCARED AGAIN if anyone brings up the biblical axiom that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, whereas, I don't blame you if I had to defend this embarrassing and comical bible FACT!!!  GET IT BIBLE DUNCE?



YOUR BIBLE "DUNCERY" IS SHOWN TO THE MEMBERSHIP ONCE AGAIN: "after you find for me in the Bible where it says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  I'll wait."

Ready for me to answer you in your outright biblical dumbness?

1. Now, get out your math calculator and have help if need be from a 2nd grader, and go back into time within Luke 3:23-38 from Jesus to Adam with the normal living time span as shown of Jesus' JEWISH creation. STOP!

2. Now add the years from the alleged Jesus from 33 AD of his death to the present day of 2024! STOP!

3. The total years from Adam to the present day is therefore approximately 6000 years! STOP!

4. Now, wipe the proverbial egg from your face once again in showing the membership in just how BIBLE STU-PID you truly are.  STOP! 



NEXT DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE ...."JUST LYING" .... THAT WANTS TO MAKE THEM A FOOL OF THEMSELVES LIKE HE DID, WILL BE ......?







.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

Just_Lying, the 2nd most dumb Bible fool of this Religion Forum,


YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM THE TOPIC, BIBLE INEPT FOOL!:  "You are off topic - again.  Sigh,"

WRONG!  You spoke of EVOLUTION, therefore this is "ON TOPIC" with your bible ineptness relative to this topic!

As usual, you are running SCARED AGAIN if anyone brings up the biblical axiom that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, whereas, I don't blame you if I had to defend this embarrassing and comical bible FACT!!!  GET IT BIBLE DUNCE?



YOUR BIBLE "DUNCERY" IS SHOWN TO THE MEMBERSHIP ONCE AGAIN: "after you find for me in the Bible where it says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  I'll wait."

Ready for me to answer you in your outright biblical dumbness?

1. Now, get out your math calculator and have help if need be from a 2nd grader, and go back into time within Luke 3:23-38 from Jesus to Adam with the normal living time span as shown of Jesus' JEWISH creation. STOP!

2. Now add the years from the alleged Jesus from 33 AD of his death to the present day of 2024! STOP!

3. The total years from Adam to the present day is therefore approximately 6000 years! STOP!

4. Now, wipe the proverbial egg from your face once again in showing the membership in just how BIBLE STU-PID you truly are.  STOP! 



NEXT DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE ...."JUST LYING" .... THAT WANTS TO MAKE THEM A FOOL OF THEMSELVES LIKE HE DID, WILL BE ......?







.

 Such cowardice!!!!  You could not defend your faith in a universe coming from zero space, you could not provide for me the naturalistic explanation for chemical evolution.  Instead you continued to try and change the topic because you know your faith has no answers to those questions.

Briefly, not all people interpret Genesis as you claim.  Many Christians are OK with a old earth view and even with evolution.  But even young earth Creationists would point out that BEFORE the 6 days of creation the earth exists.  Further, they would point out to you that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are not exhaustive and skip multiple generations as compared to the lists in the Old Testament.  Someone who knew their Bible would have known that, but you didn't.  

I have to assume you are OK being known for your cowardice as you did not defend your atheistic beliefs and answer the simple questions put to your faith.  I've laid out the problems with chemical evolution, let's hear your faith based response.  Maybe you can get @MayCaesar and @FactFinder to come and sing the 'science of the gaps' excuse while you try to change the subject.  

In comment, https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187269/#Comment_187269 , I challenged you to answer my questions and you ran like a coward.  Man up and defend your faith.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Such cowardice!!!!  You could not defend your faith in a universe coming from zero space, you could not provide for me the naturalistic explanation for chemical evolution.

Yet you can't defend your faith beyond "god did it" and can't provide an explanation of how god doing it produces chemical evolution? Describe the mechanisms used in gods process if you have evidence.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Such cowardice!!!!  You could not defend your faith in a universe coming from zero space, you could not provide for me the naturalistic explanation for chemical evolution.

Yet you can't defend your faith beyond "god did it" and can't provide an explanation of god doing it produces chemical evolution. Describe the mechanisms used in gods process in you have evidence.

When I look at the complexity of DNA and how it is like a written language or code and ask myself where can I find things like code, the answer is only through the product of intelligence.  So it is logical to think that DNA is the product of an intelligence.  To think that something so complex occurred by chaos with the odds of 1 in to to the 89000 power, and that is but just one of the many miracles that are needed to happen for chemical evolution to have occurred, it is much more logical and probable that life came from an intelligence.  

I'm sure you'll sing the science of the gaps song again and tell me that even when nature says it isn't possible, nature knows its possible. LOL.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

So you don't know how god did it? No special intuition? The lottery was rigged in our favor and without a shred of evidence you accept that explanation? Sorry but for me I need satisfying answers based in the rational examination of evidence. But if you're satisfied I'm happy for you.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

So you don't know how god did it? No special intuition? The lottery was rigged in our favor and without a shred of evidence you accept that explanation? Sorry but for me I need satisfying answers based in the rational examination of evidence. But if you're satisfied I'm happy for you.

 Of course I don't know how God did it.  Why would I know? If the problem can't be solved naturalistically then a supernatural answer is needed.  I'm not God, but a being of nature.  

You are willing to shrug your shoulders and say 'guess we just won the cosmic lottery' and pretend that all those 261 finely tuned paraments that are astronomically improbable just happened to be right for you.  If you win the lottery one day, you can say it was luck.  Win it 2 days in a row, you can reason someone had to win it.  But if you win it 10^1,000,000 power times daily in a row, maybe even you would start to think 'hey, this might not be random'.  just sayin

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

So you don't know how god did it? No special intuition? The lottery was rigged in our favor and without a shred of evidence you accept that explanation? Sorry but for me I need satisfying answers based in the rational examination of evidence. But if you're satisfied I'm happy for you.

Of course I don't know how God did it.  Why would I know? If the problem can't be solved naturalistically then a supernatural answer is needed.  I'm not God, but a being of nature.  

You are willing to shrug your shoulders and say 'guess we just won the cosmic lottery' and pretend that all those 261 finely tuned paraments that are astronomically improbable just happened to be right for you.  If you win the lottery one day, you can say it was luck.  Win it 2 days in a row, you can reason someone had to win it.  But if you win it 10^1,000,000 power times daily in a row, maybe even you would start to think 'hey, this might not be random'.  just sayin

What I'm saying is either way we don't know how the universe came to be. There are forces manipulating things to certain degrees we have discovered that. How many different variations and what exactly is behind these forces and the energy driving them is unknown. You seem to be saying we won the lottery twice and both times it was rigged?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Again

An atheist's disbelief in God does not automatically equate to a belief in no God.

• Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.
• Belief in no God is a more specific assertion, often referred to as strong atheism.

Most atheists simply lack belief in a deity, without making a positive claim about the deity's non-existence.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Tricky Rickey

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Non-sense Rickey.

You just quote non-sense from an old book.

An old book that someone compiled a thousand years ago.


If there was a GOD Rickey, it would be omni-sensible, not omni-ridiculous.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

@21CenturyIconoclast

Zat you D.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

JUST_LYING, who wants Rickey’s place in being the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum,

YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE AS DUMBFOUNDED OUTSIDE OF YOUR FAITH AS WELL:  “You are off topic - again.  Sigh, I've answered your question already in the past.  I've talked about the genealogies and the first 12 chapters of Genesis with you before.  But I tell you what, I'll once again walk you through the answer, after you find for me in the Bible where it says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  I'll wait.”

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187269/#Comment_187269

First thing at your laughable expense, is your little boy rhetoric accuses me of being “Off Topic,” but then at the same time relating to your bible stu-pidity, you want me to show where in the Bible does it say that the creation of man and the universe is approxmately 6000 years old!  Where you “stupidly” wanted to know in where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old, where I did not say this in the first place BIBLE DUNCE, duh!  Don’t be so inept of the topic next time, okay? LOL!

As in your case 100% of the time, you don’t know in how bible dumb you are until the Atheist like me points this out to you! You are funny!

JUST_LYING, in the link below, you were easily “schooled by me again” relative to man and the universe being approximately 6000 years old, and that you are running away from and went into hiding AGAIN!  How embarrassing in front of the membership can you get?  Can you tell us how you cope with you being a "sissy?" 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187264/#Comment_187264

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS BIBLE DUMB AS “JUST_LYING” AND WHERE HE "TRIES" TO PUT WORDS IN ATHEISTS MOUTH THAT THEY DIDN'T SAY, WILL BE.....?

.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

JUST_LYING, who wants Rickey’s place in being the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum,

YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU ARE AS DUMBFOUNDED OUTSIDE OF YOUR FAITH AS WELL:  “You are off topic - again.  Sigh, I've answered your question already in the past.  I've talked about the genealogies and the first 12 chapters of Genesis with you before.  But I tell you what, I'll once again walk you through the answer, after you find for me in the Bible where it says that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  I'll wait.”

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187269/#Comment_187269

First thing at your laughable expense, is your little boy rhetoric accuses me of being “Off Topic,” but then at the same time relating to your bible stu-pidity, you want me to show where in the Bible does it say that the creation of man and the universe is approxmately 6000 years old!  Where you “stupidly” wanted to know in where in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old, where I did not say this in the first place BIBLE DUNCE, duh!  Don’t be so inept of the topic next time, okay? LOL!

As in your case 100% of the time, you don’t know in how bible dumb you are until the Atheist like me points this out to you! You are funny!

JUST_LYING, in the link below, you were easily “schooled by me again” relative to man and the universe being approximately 6000 years old, and that you are running away from and went into hiding AGAIN!  How embarrassing in front of the membership can you get?  Can you tell us how you cope with you being a "sissy?" 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187264/#Comment_187264

NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS BIBLE DUMB AS “JUST_LYING” AND WHERE HE "TRIES" TO PUT WORDS IN ATHEISTS MOUTH THAT THEY DIDN'T SAY, WILL BE …..?

“If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

.

So you haven't got an answer to the questions put to you in 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187273/#Comment_187273

And you are still running.  

Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old.  In fact the earth exists prior to the day one account in Genesis 1, else how do you determine the beginning or end of a day.  

Now, unless you got to do the 100m in the Olympics, stop your running, find your gonads and answer the questions I put to you.  How did a universe pop into existence from zero space?  How did life come from non-life?  These are faith claims of the atheist that can not be explained.  Come on, put up or forever be known as the coward you have been shown to be.



See 21CenturyIconoclast run.  See him run away real fast.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE IN RUNNING AWAY FROM ME SCHOOLING YOU ON YOUR BIBLES CREATION OF MAN AND THE UNIVERSE:  "Now, unless you got to do the 100m in the Olympics, stop your running, find your gonads and answer the questions I put to you."


WHOOPS!  You forgot to answer my questions in said post as shown below at your expense again:

1. How do you deal with you being an outright "pseudo-christian sissy" in having to run away from where I have shown you that the creation of man and the universe is approximately only 6000 years old in your bible?! ....... SCARED?



2. Why did you "try" to put words in my mouth relative to the earth in being 6000 years old, which I did not say?

3. You didn't address in how bible dumb you are until the Atheists like me points this out to you!

4. You didn't address Deuteronomy 17:2-5 where it tells pseudo-christians like you to murder non-believers!

I'll be waiting for you to address the 4 propositions above.

BEGIN:




























.

MayCaesar

Theist logix.

"What caused the existence of the Universe?"

"I have no idea."

"But I know: god!"

"Then what caused the existence of god?"

"Nothing: god is the primal cause."

"Okay, I will then say that the Universe is the primal cause."

"Nooooo, you cannot do that! "

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE IN RUNNING AWAY FROM ME SCHOOLING YOU ON YOUR BIBLES CREATION OF MAN AND THE UNIVERSE:  "Now, unless you got to do the 100m in the Olympics, stop your running, find your gonads and answer the questions I put to you."

WHOOPS!  You forgot to answer my questions in said post as shown below at your expense again:

1. How do you deal with you being an outright "pseudo-christian sissy" in having to run away from where I have shown you that the creation of man and the universe is approximately only 6000 years old in your bible?! ....... SCARED?



2. Why did you "try" to put words in my mouth relative to the earth in being 6000 years old, which I did not say?

3. You didn't address in how bible dumb you are until the Atheists like me points this out to you!

4. You didn't address Deuteronomy 17:2-5 where it tells pseudo-christians like you to murder non-believers!

I'll be waiting.

BEGIN:
























.

Sorry bruh,

Rickey and I have answered 100s of your rapid fire mischaracterizations over and over.  You don't get to change the subject now.  I've asked you to answer 2 questions - just 2 - not hundreds.  And you have run from them.  Time to stop running and explain your atheistic faith claims:  1)  How did a universe pop into existence from zero space?  2)  How did life pop into existence from non-life?  I'm waiting.

Try all you want to change the subject.  You are going to have to answer my questions for a change first.  Now what's your answer or are you going to run again?

Me imitating 21CenturyIconoclast running away yet again.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

Theist logix.

"What caused the existence of the Universe?"

"I have no idea."

"But I know: god!"

"Then what caused the existence of god?"

"Nothing: god is the primal cause."

"Okay, I will then say that the Universe is the primal cause."

"Nooooo, you cannot do that! "

May,  a problem with saying the universe is the primal cause is that the universe can't create itself.  According to Big Bang cosmology, the universe, a fraction of a second before inflation began, inhabited zero space.  How much can you fit in zero space, May?  Prior to the Big Bang, according to most cosmologists, there was no space, nor time.  So where was this universe of yours?  And when did it exist prior?

Now you have mocked me and Rickey for claiming that God exists outside of space-time.  Are you now making that appeal?  Please tell me you are, because I would really like to bring some more science to your faith claims.  

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

@21CenturyIconoclast

Tis you Brother D.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Now you have mocked me and Rickey for claiming that God exists outside of space-time.  Are you now making that appeal?  Please tell me you are, because I would really like to bring some more science to your faith claims.  

What gets mocked is your futile attempts at declaring that science somehow supports asserting that undetectable characters from a collection of myths are responsible for creation; as a viable scientifically sound reason for explaining how the universe came to be.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Now you have mocked me and Rickey for claiming that God exists outside of space-time.  Are you now making that appeal?  Please tell me you are, because I would really like to bring some more science to your faith claims.  

What gets mocked is your futile attempts at declaring that science somehow supports asserting that undetectable characters from a collection of myths are responsible for creation; as a viable scientifically sound reason for explaining how the universe came to be.

You've got it backwards. science can't disprove God's existence, but science can disprove your atheistic faith claims.  That's what really irks you,  that I am using science to show that things like chemical evolution are not likely and showing that the universe had a singularity where there was zero space and time from which many atheists believe a universe popped into existence.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Now you have mocked me and Rickey for claiming that God exists outside of space-time.  Are you now making that appeal?  Please tell me you are, because I would really like to bring some more science to your faith claims.  

What gets mocked is your futile attempts at declaring that science somehow supports asserting that undetectable characters from a collection of myths are responsible for creation; as a viable scientifically sound reason for explaining how the universe came to be.

You've got it backwards. science can't disprove God's existence, but science can disprove your atheistic faith claims.  That's what really irks you,  that I am using science to show that things like chemical evolution are not likely and showing that the universe had a singularity where there was zero space and time from which many atheists believe a universe popped into existence.

What atheistic claims have I made and how were they refuted? I don't believe in your myths and you haven't refuted that. You've only shown science tells us you and I don't know how the universe got here. Why would that irk me? You really should try and think critically if you ever want to try and debate sometime. You invoke one or some of hundreds of imagined gods with no proof. Science isn't trying to disprove things not known to exist in the real world, it just studies facts and realities that do exist. Are you "irked" by this?

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin



Just_Lying, who wants to take over RickeyHoltsClaw's position of being the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP:  "Rickey and I have answered 100s of your rapid fire mischaracterizations over and over.  You don't get to change the subject now."  https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187338/#Comment_187338

Your simple-mindedness seems to forget that you brought forth the origin of the universe and evolution with this statement of yours herewith: 

"So after you mocked the idea that atheist operate in faith, I showed that atheists do operate in faith because they can not explain naturalistically the origin of the universe nor how life came from non-life." https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187260/#Comment_187260

Therefore, logically, you opened the door to discuss the topic in your quote above!  Get it, grade-school educated Just_Lying? Huh?  Do you need it explained to you in even simpler terms?  Yes?

The end result is the logical deduction that I did not change the topic!!!  Duh!

Therefore since you mentioned the Atheist cannot explain the universe in your quote above, then when I showed you that your bible says it is approximatley 6000 years old in my post/link below that you are running away from, then YOU are to tell us why the universe is only 6000 years old, where science in the image below states the universe is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD!  GET IT BIBLE DUNCE?!  Huh? 2+2=4.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187338/#Comment_187338

READY?  No running away like a sheepish little COWARD like Rickey, where discussions can veer off of the main topic when a member brings them forth like you did, Jesus is watching you to try and defend his faith (Hebrews 4:13), okay?

BEGIN:

.

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin



Just_Lying, who wants to take over RickeyHoltsClaw's position of being the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP:  "Rickey and I have answered 100s of your rapid fire mischaracterizations over and over.  You don't get to change the subject now."  https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187338/#Comment_187338

Your simple-mindedness seems to forget that you brought forth the origin of the universe and evolution with this statement of yours herewith: 

"So after you mocked the idea that atheist operate in faith, I showed that atheists do operate in faith because they can not explain naturalistically the origin of the universe nor how life came from non-life." https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187260/#Comment_187260

Therefore, logically, you opened the door to discuss the topic in your quote above!  Get it, grade-school educated Just_Lying? Huh?  Do you need it explained to you in even simpler terms?  Yes?

The end result is the logical deduction that I did not change the topic!!!  Duh!

Therefore since you mentioned the Atheist cannot explain the universe in your quote above, then when I showed you that your bible says it is approximatley 6000 years old in my post/link below that you are running away from, then YOU are to tell us why the universe is only 6000 years old, where science in the image below states the universe is BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD!  GET IT BIBLE DUNCE?!  Huh? 2+2=4.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187338/#Comment_187338

READY?  No running away like a sheepish little COWARD like Rickey, where discussions can veer off of the main topic when a member brings them forth like you did, Jesus is watching you to try and defend his faith (Hebrews 4:13), okay?

BEGIN:

.

So you haven't got an answer to the questions put to you in 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187273/#Comment_187273

And you are still running.  

I told you no more answering your questions until you answer mine.  Now are you going to man up and give me the answer to my 2 questions?  You've asked hundreds of Rickey and myself.  Surely, you can answer 2:
1) How did an universe pop into existence from zero space?
2) How did life pop into existence from non-life?

I'm waiting.  Are you going to run away again???



We are all laughing at you.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

What part of my posts facts didn't you understand as shown in this link?
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/187393/#Comment_187393

This is a DISCUSSION FORUM, not a RUNAWAY FROM DISCUSSION FORUM, like you are doing from my link above!

AGAIN, you opened the door to discuss the universe in my link showing this fact above, therefore YOU are running away from my post, whereas in "CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER" my post was first in bringing up your bible stu-pidity, then you responded to it with your questions that you want answered before you answered mine as being first!

Get it "Home-Schooled" pseudo-christian?  See how debates work? Yes? Maybe? 

GOD DAMMIT, YOU ARE AS STU-PID OUTSIDE OF YOUR FAITH AS YOU ARE WITHIN IT!!!


*********  Therefore, address my post in the link above FIRST, understood BIBLE DUNCE? ********













.