I believe in God: So Debate me

[Rabb Allah]

Ok, if that's your fallback when you're unable to substantiate your beliefs, you can cling to it if you like.

This is gonna be good.

It's just coincidental that the God you believe in happens to be a popular one in your particular culture.

BRILLIANT! Because we all know that America is a Muslim infested nation where a guy like myself was raised Muslim.

Do you see your stupidity?

Yes, and that's the problem. You cannot explain why your God is real, and other Gods are not, when all Gods have the same lack of evidence.

I never even attempted to do such a thing. I can disprove any religion at any time. Reincarnation holds no validity, thus goes Hinduism. Islam is pagan, Christianity is Pagan, Judaism is the first pagan lie and Sikhism is a failed syncretic attempt.

Why must I bother refuting every single religion? I accept the claim to particular religions if they hold some sort of validity that can be measured and experienced. I cannot experience a Jesus because Jesus is a fable along with Krishna.

Yes you do. You believe in God, which is by definition a supernatural entity.

I am a Panendeist so everytime I think I have evidence God exist. So your claim is bullshit

I believe in a natural entity as monism spanks your assertions. I just wonder what other dumb thing you are going to say

So you admittedly make shit up and present it as fact, then laugh, gibber, and fling your own excrement when people ask you to support your claims.

Teapot talkin' 'bout the teakettle?

Sorry, don't speak word salad.

Speak of salads do you know how to toss one?

Perhaps you should declare a jihad on me. Otherwise, as someone who apparently supports eugenics, I suggest you make a pencil disappear using your eye socket forthwith.

Girl, you just make me laugh.

I'm sure each time you were as objectively bad at supporting the reasoning for your beliefs as you are now.

Nope, I never had a chance to support either claim till once. Which is why I am not any of those things anymore. Although I can make a snazzy case for Hinduism it just takes WAY too long. Hinduism needs to shave with Occam's Razor.

"God" is by definition a unisex name. An omnipresent being cannot have gender.

God by definition is a male name with male connations

"God: 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."(http://www.thefreedictionary.com)

Right next to the period at the end of this sentence is the world's smallest violin,

Oh look, more cultural coincidences:

The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ὁ θεὸς μόνος, ho theos monos).[11] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[12] The corresponding Aramaic form is ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ʼAlâhâ in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply 'God'.[13]

Mhm. Fairly accurate but it is older than that.

Yet you keep making assertions like the above, and throw a screaming tantrum whenever anyone disagrees.

"Tantrum: A fit of bad temper.(TheFreeDictionary)."

I am not angry or of ill temper. I am behind a desk giggling. Nobody is angry but you because your stupidity is frustrating(I assume). Unlike yourself though I do not make my assumptions facts.

It seems you do expect acceptance of your assertions, and are unable to support them by any method other then hissy fit.

I believe you should have said than then hissy fits. Just sayin'. Also you know damn well I am not having a hissy fit......wait I am laughing at your stupidity again .
Why would I even have a tantrum to begin with? Why would a joke make me angry?

False comparison. Abiogenesis theories are based on empirical evidence. Gods are based on cultural mythology and superstition, and lack empirical evidence.

Evolution is god, thus god is empirical. Panendeism thwarts your argument again. Also my Panendeism comes from a later Sumerian invention which was later shared other cults and cultures. It is a form of theological monism the Arabs had before they started making idols.
Unlike common perception. The Mesopotamians and Babylonian quit literal idolatry towards the end of their power. Arabs also did not have true idols for a long while. These folks were called the Nabataeans.

There you go again, presenting your beliefs as facts with zero support, demanding we accept your conclusions.

I told you my methodology of weeding through religions not my basis for my beliefs.
You seem to be slightly retarded, could you perhaps be the Gerber Baby people keep talking about?

For a person to mistake a methodology with a set of axioms puzzles me honestly. I have regarded many atheists as brilliant and I sort of assumed the more militant the atheist the more intellectual. Sadly tis not the case here

I would be considerably less bright of I accepted the incoherent rantings of an internet troll unquestioningly.

....says the troll. You have the intelligence of 2 marbles in a can and call me a troll? I seriously wonder if you are a theist making fun of an atheist. I wanna debate tor and Godslayer and here I am stuck with you, a fool or perhaps a comedian.

Yet incapable of putting it into your own words, apparently.

.......says the guy who can't tell an argument for god from an outline of the approach to a religion.

---

A Red Herring fallacy is where you bring up something irrelevant to what the conversation is about. This is exactly what you did when you brought up the genetic differences between organisms.

You asked me how life began. I answered. You are the world's worst debater it seems.

You also made a red-herring when began talking about god when the thread is about god.

You also made the Genetic Fallacy when you said the essay, Why Religion is Bullshit is nonsense.

The article has nothing to do with me. I am not religious and far from it. Morality, science, and metaphysics are completely irrelevant. I have the same morality as a secularist. Understand and approve of the same scientific evidences while also not holding a believe in the "soul". I am a goddamn deist so how the fuck can I reject any of these things? But now that I think of it you are not very bright .

When you wish to refute a person's claims refute the claims they actually make and the beliefs they hold. Rampant.A.I. could do similar I may add

Are you a troll? Or perhaps very bad at understanding philosophy and argumentation?