Indeed, but then no one has called you a liar just because they disagree with you, they are offering compellingly evidenced that you have lied or been dishonest, and what strikes me as childish or immature here, is to ignore that evidence, and refuse to address it or the accusations honestly. Instead resort to faux indignation, with angry denunciations of the person(s) making the claim. This is also of course the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy, where you attack the person, in order to avoid addressing what they’ve said.
For example of the kind of dishonesty we’re talking about:
So firstly not one word there demonstrates or even suggests anti-theism, which is defined as opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods. What is doubly dishonest is that you have gone from a single remark, to a sweeping comment about the entire site.
The there is this:
My response says it all, and you don’t even attempt to evidence that sweeping and dishonest straw man, since disbelieving the claims in the gospel myths, does not equate to a claim they are false. A fallacy in informal logic you seem happy to repeat and ignore it when it is pointed out to you, as of course is what @TheMagus points out above.
So this is again is a sweeping straw man fallacy, and again you don’t even pretend to evidence this dishonest and sweeping claim, and again it is based on the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, since not being able to prove only the natural exists or that the supernatural does not, does not in any way lend any rational credence to the existence of the supernatural.
Until the supernatural is demonstrated as possible, or demonstrated to have occurred or exists, then it is perfectly rationally to withhold belief from it, and one need not disprove the claims or offer any contrary explanations to it.