Either-way I wont believe in something which has lack of proof.
We both know there’s thousands of religious beliefs, but there’s too much lack of evidence in any of them.
If death is nothing I will never miss concessions.
Sorry I forgot to reply directly to you. DOH!!!
Yet you have repeatedly claimed to believe no deity exists, and admit you have zero proof?
No I have no proof, but as long as there’s lack of proof I will never believe in any deity.
Did it again, forgot to reply directly. DOH!
FievelJAtheist
(God Doesn't Do Anything At All)
Yes I did, and I’ll keep believing that claim even if I have 0 evidence.
SO WHICH IS IT?
What you think I will suddenly be a theist believing in a god?
God doesn’t do anything meaning that our universe needed no god to start it.
I also agree with.
Larry King also believes there’s nothing after death.
Yes there’s lack of evidence for a god, as well as god can not be completely rolled out either.
I still have no problem dying to nothing, as I will never miss consciousness if that’s the end.
Why would you post such a lie? Where have I ever made any such claim?
You said:
Then you said:
In another thread you said:
FievelJAtheist
(God Doesn’t Do Anything At All)
Yes I did, and I’ll keep believing that claim even if I have 0 evidence.
SO AGAIN I ASK, WHICH IS IT?
Stop lying and pretending anyone objecting to your fallacious claims is remotely defending theism.
I AM AN ATHEIST!!!
I suspect he is confusing you with me. I did mention I still suspected him to be a theist.
But as we all see, he constantly sends out mixed messages.
1 Like
Yeah you did say something along that line.
There’s like what? Three thousand two hundred religions and millions of gods.
So there’s no proof that a god does not exist, but we all also know there’s no evidence one exists either.
You still haven’t addressed this contradiction?
1 Like
Okay, Let’s work on “Lack of Evidence now.” The evidence that exists is extremely poor. Hearsay, unfounded miracle claims, ancient stories, personal experience and personal testimony. (This is not "NO EVIDENCE) It is very bad evidence that can not stand against critical in inquiry. Bad evidence + bad evidence + bad evidence ad infinitum, will never equal good evidence. (There is a room full of zealots in any psych ward that have daily conversations with angels, the devil and Jesus or God himself. Most miracles have been debunked and the few that have not, do not lead us to make the leap to a supernatural cause. The supernatural must be demonstrated to exist before it can be the cause of anything. (“I don’t know” or “It can’t be explained” is not an argument for the supernatural.)
So … Learn to say… "There is no GOOD evidence for the existence of God or gods.
That’s for sure, but it’s also impossible not to see how obviously dishonest he’s being.
I have asked him several times whether he does or does not see the difference between the lack of belief in a deity, and the claim a deity does not exist.
It’s a simple yes or no question, that he refuses to give an honest answer to.
1 Like
That is why I confronted Fievel and said harsh words. That was my last option, and I did not want to do it.
I’ve been confronting his posts for a year now. It’s still the same old BS over and over and over.
Can’t believe you just used up all that space to explain subspeciation (within a species without gene pool expansion, GPE) and nada on trans-speciation(like gorilla to man by GPE). Consider the difference in speciation types first. I want you to move beyond just gathering accurate info to the independent processing and determination of whats and what nots from that through logic because you have that ability, else much of what you read would inform you and deform your thinking. Here, move beyond nomenclature and understand flow and concept.
If we call this process you describe, a formation of new ‘species’, that without GPE, can that account for mutation necessary for transforming a fish to a man, i.e. across species, from simpler to complex, which involves GPE, as in the evo rhetoric?
Like I’ve told you already, there are no new discoveries to drive an evo rhetoric against creationism. There’s nothing on evolution you’re presenting here to discredit creationism that has not already been debunked in that light.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Creationism is not a theory. It is a claim. There is nothing backing up creationist ideas. As for recent evolutionary discoveries… there are a plethora if you learn how to use google.
Top that with the simple fact… regardless of what nonsense you spout on an atheist forum “The court has held that it’s not a scientific theory,” THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN CREATIONISM.
2 Likes
1 Like
Hilarious, creationism is an unevidenced myth, there is no need to prove it wrong. You’re yet again trying to reverse the burden of proof with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The rest of your vapid religious rhetoric has no factual basis, and you’re trying to pitch this superstitious guff in direct contradiction of accepted scientific theories and laws.
I’ll stick with science over vapid superstition thanks. Especially since you don’t even know the difference between a scientifc theory and a law. 
