"Sharia law makes a lot of sense" - Linda Sarsour

[Amarok]

Brilliant.  No, really.  You atheists are special.

Lol that's you best come back 

Don't call me "friend" when all you and your pals do is attack and criticize me, and in the present case, with extremely ignorant grammar.

It's called sarcasm genius . As for attacks and criticism . It's nothing you have not earned  so drop the persecution complex . Wow you expect some to whom english is not their first written  language to be well versed in english grammar .  Tell  me oh all knowing one what does this say (no using the internet .) ᑦhe ᑦheᐃᔅᑦ ᐃ'ᒻ ᑕᓪᑭᖕ ᑦo ᐃᔅ ᐊ ᔅᒧᒡ ᐊᔅᔅ If you can't maybe you should not be so quick to judge someone else skill in an unfamiliar  language . 

tsk, tsk 

  

[GrandizerII]

Brilliant.  No, really.  You atheists are special.

Lol that's you best come back 

Don't call me "friend" when all you and your pals do is attack and criticize me, and in the present case, with extremely ignorant grammar.

It's called sarcasm genius  . As for attacks and criticism . It's nothing you have not earned  so drop the persecution complex . Wow you expect some to whom english is not their first written  language to be well versed in english grammar .  Tell  me oh all knowing one what does this say (no using the internet .) ᑦhe ᑦheᐃᔅᑦ ᐃ'ᒻ ᑕᓪᑭᖕ ᑦo ᐃᔅ ᐊ ᔅᒧᒡ ᐊᔅᔅ If you can't maybe you should not be so quick to judge someone else skill in an unfamiliar  language . 

tsk, tsk 

  

He's not good enough to address the logical points you make, so he focuses on your linguistic skills instead. He's a pathetic one, this Starman.

[Amarok]

Nope apologists who's (sic) nonsense has already been criticized to death . Try doing research rather then taking convient (sic) sound bites that reinforce your beliefs . 

Your (sic) the only one here friend (sic) that seems angry .

Brilliant.  No, really.  You atheists are special.

Don't call me "friend" when all you and your pals do is attack and criticize me, and in the present case, with extremely ignorant grammar.

tsk, tsk

---

Apologist  and out of date

And Darling is an argument from authority and again out of date

---

Oh ans the Op has taken her out of context 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lin...e766b51180

---

Circular reasoning

---

Yup it's still to big for a god too have wasted so much time and space for one group of semi evolved primates on a speck of dust   . But just right if your (sic) an atheist. 

Assertion

---

Oh and the Op does not get what's meant by nothing . But even if we went with his misunderstanding on could still make a logical case 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468

Oh and six arguments that a multiverse is more likely then (sic) a god 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives.../cosmology

"...your (sic) an atheist"

"more likely then (sic) a god"

You can't even write simple English.

Good job you can nitpick my spelling and grammar  . Too bad that's not a refutation of what i wrote or linked . Just more evidence you have nothing substantive to say. 

[Starman]

Your deceptive arguments are your relentless atheist claims of being oh-so-intelligent and rational and scientific.
Despite all this claimed intellectualism, you can't write simple English.

When presented with compelling opinions of scholars, you call them "out of date."
Yes, like Darwin? Since when was calculus "out of date" because it was invented by Isaac Newton?

Absurd, like so many of your flip answers.

[Amarok]

Your deceptive arguments are your relentless atheist claims of being oh-so-intelligent and rational and scientific.

Assertion .And to be frank that sounds more like you so far .

Despite all this claimed intellectualism, you can't write simple English.

Einstein couldn't tie his shoes  and was not good at some elements of math . I can't write in english very well . Newton believed in alchemy . That in no way calls into question my intelligence or theirs . So again ad hominem. 

When presented with compelling opinions of scholars, you call them "out of date." 
Yes, like Darwin? Since when was calculus "out of date" because it was invented by Isaac Newton?

So your denying that ideas can be out of date even the" Opinions" of "Scholars" (apologists) ? Your saying nothing in hundred years has changed in biblical studies. And that nothing that lead to the quotes above could have changed or been shown wrong (they have) ? And yes Darwin's model of evolution  is out of date and has been replaced  with modern synthesis . And Newton's conception of calculus has been updated as well. So this whole line of reasoning is fallacious.   

Absurd, like so many of your flip answers.

Some one here is being absurd . But it's not me i'm afraid .

[Astreja]

Hi, Starman. I would like to give you something to think about:

If I were to compare you to a Christian tyrant of the past (for example, any king or church figure who ordered the torture and killing of non-believers), I suspect you would be offended by the comparison because you aren't in the habit of torturing or killing.

Likewise, I find it grossly offensive when you compare me, a law-abiding citizen who happens to be an atheist, to some madman from halfway around the globe. Take Stalin, for instance. He may or may not have been an atheist -- in fact, he spent some time in a religious seminary in his earlier years -- but he was also a Communist politician, spoke Russian, and had a moustache. I have far more things in common with various Christian co-workers and acquaintances.

Criticize atheism all you want. Don't attack the characters of people you don't even know and will probably never meet. It's rude, and there is an extremely high probability that you are bearing false witness.

[Fireball]

Hi, Starman.  I would like to give you something to think about:

If I were to compare you to a Christian tyrant of the past (for example, any king or church figure who ordered the torture and killing of non-believers), I suspect you would be offended by the comparison because you aren't in the habit of torturing or killing.

Likewise, I find it grossly offensive when you compare me, a law-abiding citizen who happens to be an atheist, to some madman from halfway around the globe.  Take Stalin, for instance.  He may or may not have been an atheist -- in fact, he spent some time in a religious seminary in his earlier years -- but he was also a Communist politician, spoke Russian, and had a moustache.  I have far more things in common with various Christian co-workers and acquaintances.

Criticize atheism all you want.  Don't attack the characters of people you don't even know and will probably never meet.  It's rude, and there is an extremely high probability that you are bearing false witness.

Yabut, as long as it is Lying For Christ®, it is OK.

[CapnAwesome]

You do realize that atheists generally consider Christians and Muslims BOTH deluded. Sharia law is just as horrifying as Mosaic law. It's a good thing not to many people follow the OT to the letter, eh? Otherwise a sex slave trade would be allowed to exist (so long as you don't beat your slaves to death, that is.)

You don't have people clamouring to follow mosaic law anything like sharia, which is the actual law people live under in many places.

[polymath257]

Your deceptive arguments are your relentless atheist claims of being oh-so-intelligent and rational and scientific.
Despite all this claimed intellectualism, you can't write simple English.

When presented with compelling opinions of scholars, you call them "out of date."  
Yes, like Darwin?  Since when was calculus "out of date" because it was invented by Isaac Newton?

Absurd, like so many of your flip answers.

Yes, Darwin is out of date. He knew nothing about genetics, for example. And when genetics was combined with Darwini's ideas, those ideas were changed and became a better model of reality.

Yes, Newton's fluxions are out of date also. NO mathematician does things using Newton's methods any longer. Those methods have been improved, extended, and simplified, not to mention put on a much more solid logical foundation (which Newton's ideas did not have). Newton would not have recognized the calculus you took in college (assuming you did).

Yes, Biblical scholars from late 19th and early 20th century are out of date. A great deal of archaeology, as well as literary criticism has been done since them which make almost anything said at that time out of date in the subject.

As for the constants of the universe proving the existence of a creator, do you have *any* evidence those constants *can* be different than they are? (answer: no). Do you have any evidence that they are not in a stable equilibrium of some sort that forces the values we see? (answer: no). Is there any evidence of anything being able to change the values of those constants? (answer: no). Have you investigated any natural processes involved in the setting of the values of those constants? (answer: no).

So, exactly how does that imply a designer?

[Amarok]

Your deceptive arguments are your relentless atheist claims of being oh-so-intelligent and rational and scientific.
Despite all this claimed intellectualism, you can't write simple English.

When presented with compelling opinions of scholars, you call them "out of date."  
Yes, like Darwin?  Since when was calculus "out of date" because it was invented by Isaac Newton?

Absurd, like so many of your flip answers.

Yes, Darwin is out of date. He knew nothing about genetics, for example. And when genetics was combined with Darwini's ideas, those ideas were changed and became a better model of reality.

Yes, Newton's fluxions are out of date also. NO mathematician does things using Newton's methods any longer. Those methods have been improved, extended, and simplified, not to mention put on a much more solid logical foundation (which Newton's ideas did not have). Newton would not have recognized the calculus you took in college (assuming you did).

Yes, Biblical scholars from late 19th and early 20th century are out of date. A great deal of archaeology, as well as literary criticism has been done since them which make almost anything said at that time out of date in the subject.

As for the constants of the universe proving the existence of a creator, do you have *any* evidence those constants *can* be different than they are? (answer: no). Do you have any evidence that they are not in a stable equilibrium of some sort that forces the values we see? (answer: no). Is there any evidence of anything being able to change the values of those constants? (answer: no). Have you investigated any natural processes involved in the setting of the values of those constants? (answer: no).

So, exactly how does that imply a designer?

Well said . Better then my response