(December 15, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: If Richard Dawkins said 2+2= "God doesn't exist", you can bet your braincell I'd be tearing him apart as a biased source.

As a biased source or someone who is simply mistaken?

Listen, it's clear at this point you have no idea what you're talking about. Inventing bullshit reasons to discredit someone doesn't rule out the fact that what they're saying might be true.

It just exposes the intellectually dishonest charade that is atheism. When atheists can't attack arguments and evidence, they try and attack people instead.

Thankfully the attacks on people don't slide. Cato hasn't managed to substantiate a single claim he's made.

You claimed there is no evidence for God's existence. You've been provided two dozen of them. Now refute them!

Ok, how would you distinguish between biased and mistaken if you don't care enough about the source to investigate?

(December 15, 2015 at 6:19 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ok, how would you distinguish between biased and mistaken if you don't care enough about the source to investigate?

I don't know. How do you cope with your debilitating ignorance?

By the way, how do you say there is no evidence for God is you admit you don't care enough about the evidence? You guys are so intellectually dishonest it's mystifying.

I do care about the evidence. It's why I've been trying to get you to justify a renowned non-credible and biased source all along the line.

(December 15, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I do care about the evidence. It's why I've been trying to get you to justify a renowned non-credible and biased source all along the line.

I've already pointed out the fallacy of the allegation. And pointed out that the allegation hasn't even been substantiated.

So there's no reason to cling to it.

Why cling to it when you have no reason to. Are you afraid of what you'll find if you read the arguments?

Are you afraid that your source can't withstand scrutiny?

(December 15, 2015 at 6:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Are you afraid that your source can't withstand scrutiny?

Not really. Go ahead and scrutinize!

(December 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

No, it's just employing brains and critical thinking instead of emotions. When they band together to form what they call an atheist church, you can call it an ideology, still not a religion. Unless you want to call communism, to name only one secular ideology, a religion too. But that's not what most atheists do, since it's mostly about individuality, which can range from left to right to Ayn Rand. So it's bullshit, meeting my expectations, given the OP.

I just wonder why everyone indulges that kind of brainfart.

(December 15, 2015 at 6:56 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Delicate Wrote: It's really obvious when you think about it: When atheism critiques religion, it inevitably ends up being either religious or very much like a religion.

No, it's just employing brains and critical thinking instead of emotions. When they band together to form what they call an atheist church, you can call it an ideology, still not a religion. Unless you want to call communism, to name only one secular ideology, a religion too. But that's not what most atheists do, since it's mostly about individuality, which can range from left to right to Ayn Rand. So it's bullshit, meeting my expectations, given the OP.

I just wonder why everyone indulges that kind of brainfart.

How come like none of the atheists here know how to use their brain and think critically then?

(December 15, 2015 at 6:55 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 15, 2015 at 6:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Are you afraid that your source can't withstand scrutiny?

Not really. Go ahead and scrutinize!

On close examination, your worldview is a clown penis.