Damn, dude… That’s just plain mean and abusive. 
It will NOT predict how everything works; unless you consider probability distributions predictions, personally I do accept that but in my experience most people do not.
Wrong again, for an atheist there is only really one question, which ironically, has a clue in the sodding name… do you believe there is a god and/or gods?
To which the answer has been given to you over and over… there is no empirical and/or objective evidence to support the claim.
Science hasn’t shown there is no need for a god, again science is a methodology and all it can do is say that 99.99% of the claims made by religion are most likely bollocks.
And that they either have no contemporary evidence to support them, no physical evidence, or they just to aren’t in accordance to reality.
3 Likes
Another blatant lie, If I hadn’t debated Christians before, I’d be wondering if someone this dishonest was in fact a Christian.
Well it’s a straw man you’ve created, so physician heal thyself. All Cog did was ask you what you were using to validate your belief in unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition, when you whine endlessly whenever anyone asks you for anything at all to evidence it.
It has been blindingly obvious for some time, that like all the other religious apologists who come here, you’re holding an empty bag, though most of them don’t seem to understand this, unlike you which must be why you won’t even try.
The only question that remains is why are you in a debate forum, and trolling is the only answer that still makes sense.
and yet when Cog asked you for one you not only failed to offer anything, yet again, you misrepresented his request with a straw man fallacy you made up about his view of science.
Not true, I have never contemplated such a ridiculous question, I am dubious there is such a thing. What the hell is an “ultimate fact”, it sounds like risible hyperbole?
Nope not true either, since a) I have never asked that question, in fact it makes no sense to me, and b) I’m not sure the universe is an answer, and an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic certainly is not an answer to anything, since it has no explanatory powers whatsoever?
Nothing science has so far enabled us to understand requires any deity or evidences one. No great shock since the concept of deity provides no data to add, and has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it is the ultimate appeal to mystery, don’t know x, goddidit…
Deities are not an hypothesis, they are unevidenced superstition. So no it isn’t, scientific facts don’t involve nor do they need or evidence woo woo superstition about the supernatural, since it offers no data to examine.
Oh look we’ve come full circle and are back to asking you what if anything, you can demonstrate to evidence any deity exists outside of the human imagination?
We pause though to enjoy the hilarity of your lie that implies science evidence your magic man, after pages of denigrating science as a benchmark for belief in one, good one, kudos.
FYI beyond a lack or absence of belief in a deity, there is no such thing as “the atheist”. Hope this tip helps you avoid such howlers in the future.
My money is on a loud exclamation of abra cadabra before he plucked it out of thin air, and then decided for all theists and atheists everywhere that we have pondered it since Moses was in short pants. To be clear, it’s a blatant porky pie.
What has he got at all in fact, as after several weeks he has remained tellingly reticent on what exactly he is basing his superstitious beliefs? The effort to avoid offering any answer whatsoever is impossible to miss, as is the pretty obvious inference.
COUGH he has nothing COUGH!
Hilarious, a unifying theory would not be an “ultimate fact” and it would be unlikely to predict how everything works, you could simply have Googled it ffs:
“unified field theory, in particle physics, an attempt to describe all fundamental forces and the relationships between elementary particles in terms of a single theoretical framework . In physics, forces can be described by fields that mediate interactions between separate objects.”
No the question for the gazzillionth time is what else do you have, to base your superstitious beliefs on?
And an atheist using the scientific method at that. You have to see the irony.
1 Like
Well I guess you never read this did you -
To answer that question needs only one word -
LOVE . Love and Love alone is all I need to convince me that there is a creator . Atheism does not provide an adequate base to explain Love.
You can argue until the cows come home about the subjectivity of what we call Love but its reality is without question .
Blimey!!!
2 Likes
Finally, now how do you think the existence of love evidence a deity exactly? Only even were I to accept your notion that nothing else can explain the existence of love, and I don’t, to claim this lack of a contrary explanation evidence anything would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
FYI: Human Emotions: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective
“There are 7 basic emotion families (disgust, fear, anger, surprise, sadness, happiness, contempt). Evolved emotions are larger in number, including emotions such as love, guilt, jealousy, and gratitude. Each is defined according to its evolved function.”
Science explains the existence of love without any evidence or need for any deity or anything supernatural.
2 Likes
Exactly, even if science or the scientific method could not explain love, it sure as hell wouldn’t therefore infer the existence of a celestial wizard.
“Oh, I can’t explain hate and neither can the scientific method, therefore everything must have been created by all knowing, all caring, all loving, infinitely great neon cosmic bunny, that much like Russle’s teapot, maintains a position behind Uranus where it cannot be seen…”
It took a tortuously long time to get here, considering all we got was a woolly unevidenced and erroneous platitude about human emotions, and a conclusion based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The tortured double negatives were pretty funny mind. Not believing in any deity can’t explain love was my favourite, one is almost obliged to point out that not believing mermaids or unicorns can’t explain love either, this doesn’t evidence mermaids or unicorns of course, odd that the penny never drops.
Sentence 1. - What about hate? Bigotry? Lust for babies? (I’m sure you’ll grant that I could go on and on.)
Sentence 2. - Well, you’re right about that. Atheism doesn’t provide a base for the explanation of a fucking thing! And the only thing atheISTS are guaranteed to have in common about what and how they think is that they do not believe in god(s).
Well, not to be a dick or anything, but there was a series planned in the late seventies called “The Atheist”, where the protagonist protects innocents from religious bigotry, but Billy Graham organization put a quietus to it…
Edit ( watch for “The Pragmatist” on HBO)
Thanks I did not know that, but I was referring to the generic sense in which @Sid used the term.
I may look for that on my Kodi app.
1 Like
Uh, not sure if you know, but I have been known to make shit up on occasion…
I just had a quick look using an inspection mirror, whilst I may need counselling, I saw no teapot?
Oh wait, I read that aloud initially and may have confused a part of my anatomy with a planetary body, well now I do feel foolish, and I may schedule an appointment with a proctologists. 
2 Likes
Well Cog could probably make a recommendation there…
As it happens, I have just acquired a 55 gallon jug of ummm. Power Slide. It’s sure to solve your problem … for a price.
Uh, hang on Cheetah… until full payment is remitted (in full), there will be no anal slip and slide fun for you…
.
.
Edit (Delivery contingent upon full payment remittance, subsequent to provision of statement stipulating “full payment due upon receipt”…please pay in full.
Payment?!? 
We have to PAY for something we blatantly STOLE from you? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t seem right. We hijacked that barrel fair and square.