Given that you are not sure what the truth is, you cannot know how close you are to it.
And you have no provided me a reliable way to any degree.
That is correct. But from my observations, the scientific method of referencing data and feedback from others is the most consistent and reliable method I am aware of.
OK, fucktard, tell me what is more reliable and consistent than the scientific method? Can you grasp the concept that even if you demolish the scientific method and atheism, that does not move you one Planck Length closer to any god?
And the inner sociopath comes out. This is always how you know an atheist has lost the debate. Moving on.
OMFG, I’ve been tortured by theistic superstition so long I’ve lost the ability to appreciate irony…
Or have I? 
Being psychological messes, atheists cannot handle basic reality.
I don’t think you understand what faith means, or known.
And here is the best “argument” the atheist has: “well, your dumb”. Being intellectual children has its downside.
HahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
Uh, oh, you weren’t being sarcastic?
Playing the victim already?
The way you know atheists know their worldview is trash is that go out of their way to avoid cross-examination. They are terrified of it. They will say whatever they have to to change the subject. It is their defense against reality mechanism.
Ah, thank fuck, he was trolling all along.
And this fool proves my point
Your is a possessive pronoun champ. If you’re going to troll, at least grasp basic spelling and grammar.
Only if your point is that you’re trolling. Otherwise your vapid verbiage seems devoid of any point, beyond trolling.
Run along now before David matches your IP address to some previous account of a disgruntled theist, and boots you off here.
It’s clear debate is not for you sunshine.
1 Like
More proof. ROFL. I love exposing these fools.
Crack does terrible things to the memory.
Do you plan on making the same ignorant error over and over and over again? Generally when one party points to the fact that an argument is fallacious and contains an equivocation fallacy, the other party is intelligent enough to discard it and try a new tactic. They don’t keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over and over again while hoping for a different response. You are engaged in hamster wheel logic. You just keep running forward with the same bullshit and getting nowhere. How about at least trying something different.
We have already explained to you that ‘YES’ we all use faith. Just not “FAITH” as defined by the “Christian Bible.” Because faith is a weaselly concept, we choose not to use it. "FAITH: can mean, trust, belief, conviction, hope, expectation, or even a code of belief.
None of these is the “FAITH” being talked about when a Christian asserts, “I believe based on 'FAITH.” This ‘FAITH’ has a special biblical meaning and is an epistemological foundation for belief. It is cited in the Bible as “THE EVIDENCE FOR THINGS NOT SEEN.” This is the "FAITH’ atheists do not have. We do not have faith in unevidenced claims.
1 Like
You are getting VERY close to getting banned from here. I would be careful, if I were you!
This is ironic…the religion that teaches people not to judge and to be humble, has the most judgmental and arrogant people in the world. You are Exhibit A of this. Sad.
2 Likes
Viceregal has been given a short time-out to ponder his actions in here.
1 Like
Another theist who doesn’t know what proof means.
Stop rolling on the floor, it’s very unhygienic, and you won’t learn anything down there, as your posts are amply demonstrating.