Likewise, I obviously can't rule out non-material reality.
The atheist is required to prove the negative every single time.
But the believer need prove nothing. IF you don't believe as they do you are the one in error.
Likewise, I obviously can't rule out non-material reality.
I'm not terrified of atheists. One of them happens to be a good friend here.
Explain to how you would know to brush your teeth if no one told you to brush your teeth. The point dumbass is you grew up in a world where people told you to brush your teeth but now now you think your some kind of fucking genius v cause you brush your teeth.I knew you were too dim to understand.
Here's a simple one for you:
Do you brush your teeth ONLY because the dentist tells you to, or do you think there might be a REASON for it?
Just curious. (I actually know the answer, it's because someone TELLS you to. That's what happens when one is too dim to understand a simple point)
![]()
Explain to how you would know to brush your teeth if no one told you to brush your teeth.
I don't force them to offer excuses.Isn't it a marvel how many EXCUSES believers can come up with to justify the lack of evidence for their beliefs? Entire arabesques of fantasy and illogic.
@gmark77 is a coward, a liar and a 40 year old retard. I doubt he'll be able to survive on his own when his parents die. He'll end up on a shitty home for retards. Sad.I don't force them to offer excuses.
I just accept that there will be different beliefs, but firmly oppose theocracy.
I notice you attack but can't address the issue. Explain how you would know to brush your teeth to keep them from rotting out of that hollow melon you call a head, if someone hadn't told you. You grew up having someone tell you to do it and now you think you're some find of fucking wizard because you brush your teeth.Are you high? Or just really, really, really, really stupid?
Wow. Seriously. Now I have to explain why brushing teeth is good to you?
Woah, Cletus.
It is not possible to prove a negative.The atheist is required to prove the negative every single time.
But the believer need prove nothing. IF you don't believe as they do you are the one in error.
I really don't care what you think Cy is afraid of. Attack the argument, not the person. Genetic fallacy.Cy is terrified of atheists. He fears them because they fail to believe as he does because his "evidence" (the existence of verbs and adjectives pointing to things that are not concrete) will be shown to be lacking.
It would be one thing if Cy were honest enough to come right out and say he's a believer, but instead he plays coy with belief. Almost as if he knows it will make him look less intelligent and that will ruin his entire game.
Ever notice how angry they are too?I really don't care what you think Cy is afraid of. Attack the argument, not the person. Genetic fallacy.
There is certainly nothing to fear from an atheist.
Indeed, because atheism is no religion at all, by definition they fear any religion. Not a fear like their lives are in danger or anything, just religion itself.
An atheist may someday come to know and accept a religion. Nothing really prevents that, but their own fear of doing so.
Even Richard Dawkins, who has been promoting atheism his whole adult life, admits that it's reasonable to logically infer that the lawful organization and design of the universe might point to some kind of clock-maker deistic god, even if it's not the Abrahamic god. He just isn't willing personally to go that far.Of course I can.
No. I don't know any atheist that is angry, particularly. Why would they be?Ever notice how angry they are too?
Richard Dawkins is not an atheist. He belongs to the Church of No God, a fundamentalist style religion. He tries to associate his religion with 'atheism', but it's a lie. He's a fundamentalist.Even Richard Dawkins, who has been promoting atheism his whole adult life, admits that it's reasonable to logically infer that the lawful organization and design of the universe might point to some kind of clock-maker deistic god, even if it's not the Abrahamic god. He just isn't willing personally to go that far.
You're hopeless.Richard Dawkins is not an atheist!
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.You're hopeless.
I notice you attack but can't address the issue.
I really don't care what you think Cy is afraid of. Attack the argument, not the person.
I really do not give a shit about him.Even Richard Dawkins, who has been promoting atheism his whole adult life, admits that it's reasonable to logically infer that the lawful organization and design of the universe might point to some kind of clock-maker deistic god, even if it's not the Abrahamic god. He just isn't willing personally to go that far.
Belief does not cause truth.That's not fighting fair. Remember Cy's Side of God is the ONLY side that gets to demand proof for things. Their beliefs require not proof and you are flawed if you fail to disprove it to them.
Such is the vapid logic of the believer.
Sadism.Ahh, suffering is a better question than the 'problem of evil' because presumably suffering COULD be moderated. But one fears that suffering might be very important for some of the believers who need non-believers to suffer and suffer and suffer.