All of you Atheists are evading a LARGE body of evidence supporting Christianity!

Or so we're being told by Conservapedia.

"Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology. As a result,
atheism often relies on asserting fragile assumptions that are contrary
to the existing evidence.[8][9][10][11] In addition, atheists/skeptics do have a tradition of making assumptions that later have proved errant.[12] . . ."

Because Christianity doesn't have any history at ALL of their assumptions being proven errant. They never believed in Geocentrism, didn't you know?

Apparently we also dilute the definition of Atheism. Original link for the excerpt:

Views: 76

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Where's their evidence against allah? against vishnu? not to mention zeus, woden, thor, wakan tanka?

Where is ANY of their evidence supporting one of these theistic beliefs over the others?

The assertions of any of these are as weak as the others. They need to put up or shut up and deal with these competing and contradictory god proposals first before they worry about others who only disbelieve in ONE more god than they do.
I think it could be an effective (although a bit devious) tactic to defend atheism in opposition to Hinduism when debating with Christian theists. The trick is you should never treat this religion as a specific one - i.e., always say "religion" instead of "Hinduism", "God" instead of "Brahman/Brahmā", quote the Vedas, Upanishads or Bhagavad Gītā instead of the Bible (there are inconsistencies enough in these sacred texts to make a case for atheism too.) Don't let them divert you onto biblical grounds. If they insist, just tell them you see no good reason to consider their upstart, newcomer Yahveh more worthy of consideration than the more venerable Brahman/Brahmā. If you don't make them flee away, you have a small chance to instill doubt in their minds, when they realize that their Christian religion is not THE natural antithesis to atheism.
Oh goody! ShockofGod is writing in conservapedia. Using his good old brand of illogic and inability to understand damn near anything pretty much 100% of the time and calling that 'proof and evidence'. When someone does not even know what the terms 'proof' and 'evidence' mean, and how they relate, I refuse to waist my breath on them.
There is not an apologetic that has not been soundly trounced, nor is there a religion with a rational basis.

Using the simple Occam's Razor you may ask, which is more likely, that a man died for three days and came back to life and forty days later floated up into a place in the sky, or that someone made up a story?

Did this Yehoshua really walk out of his tomb followed by a hopping crucifix and then grow to skyscraper size as the popular first-century Gospel of Peter attests, or was someone taking a bit of literary license?

There is no history of an actual event in a book composed of hundreds of thousands of scraps of copies of copies containing more mistakes than there are scraps and written and edited from at least forty to 1500 years after the event. There is only mythmaking; boilerplating of ancient stories and tales, many describing numerous characters.

Religion is the art of assuming your conclusions and then inventing stories (apologetics) to explain them. No one even knows when this "Jesus" person lived - it's all based in the musings of a sixth-century monk who made the attempt to trace back to the original story and no one knows his methods. Jesus could have lived a hundred years before any stories were written down and no one would know it.

There was no Slaughter of the Innocents.

There was no tearing of the temple curtain nor an earthquake.

The dead did not walk.

If any of these things were true they would have been reported in non-religious history. And if any claims in such a book are so obviously false, then all must be called into question. And this is a story that does not suffer questions well.
Especially when you have the Romans involved who kept meticulous records of everything that when on in the lands they conquered as did the Egyptians.
Has anyone seen the linked article, "the question atheists fear"?

Apparently the question that we fear is: "What proof and evidence do you have that proves that atheism is accurate and correct?"

Shit, you got me there...I'm quaking in my pants.
The question isn't terrifying, but the awful formatting of the video is.
I PWND Shock when i replied to him directly.

This is my message to him..

"Saying that atheists are afraid of something that they have no reason to believe in is not logical. Remember atheists do not believe in god due to the overwhelming lack of provable evidence not because of direct evidence in the nonexistence of god. I stress again due to the lack of evidence.

I do not think you understand the true atheist mindset. It sounds like the point you are making is the same Ken Ham (or his brother actually) of Answers In Genesis made recently that atheists choose not to believe in god due to having a heart set against god. This is illogical as well because atheists do not have an emotional investment in the matter their stance is clearly based on a logical consensus. I am sorry sir but your conclusions simply are not sound."

His reply was to send me a video of what he considers to be a group of atheists not answering his nonsensical question and just the words "Be ashamed." I replied back with this..

"I rest my case."

He replied back..

"Nobody believes your crap man. Go sell it to a blind man."

I win.
Nah....THIS is a win!

I'm making another one just for Evolution Debaters.


Blog Posts

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 3 Comments

Forever Cursed

Posted by Nerdy Keith on February 25, 2015 at 8:00pm 4 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service