There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

If this ain't the words a psychopathic narcissistic anti-theists then I will eat my hat. It is a very good description of an angry and aggressive atheist, twisted to make it fit, badly, onto theists. Words that clearly confirm the hatred felt by the very Seasoned Newby here who has a ring of familiarity to him. Surely no one can now complain about the words of the OP, and there description of the nasty atheists, after having read this drivel. It does the cause of decent atheists no favours by having fellow members of their group talk such rot.

What's psychopathic or narcissistic about it??

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not true Richard Dawkins made it very clear that he intends to rid the planet of theists, as did Christopher Hitchens.

Neither of them has said they planned on doing that. Of course, you already know that because we've already discussed both of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There was a bunch of post I refused to answer on the grounds that they were insulting and rude having a purpose to aggregate rather then to induce constructive debate. You were laying traps, saying misleading things and attacking the poster rather the the post. Trolling.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a person who is interested in debate and convincing others that what you believe is true, as you keep saying you are. Turns out you're just a whiner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Following the opening of their documentary The Unbelievers, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussed the merits of their approaches to “ridding the world of religion.”

Following the April 29 opening of their documentary The Unbelievers at Toronto’s Hot Docs Film Festival, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussed the merits of their approaches to “ridding the world of religion.” In a recent interview with Steve Paikin,1 they made it clear that, despite their sometimes different personas, they have the same agenda—getting people to get rid of their belief in God. Yet they both say that Christians should not feel “threatened” by their efforts to expunge religion from human history.

The Unbelievers
Outspoken atheists Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, costars of the documentary The Unbelievers, discuss their strategy for ridding the world of religion in general and Christianity in particular. They consider Christianity “demeaning” and wish to re-design society “the way we want it.” Image: screen shots from interview with Steve Paikin on Rise of the New Atheists? | TVO

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/the-unbelievers-plan-to-rid-the-world-of-god/

But the final end of humanity’s destiny is not the end prophesied by Dawkins and Krauss, for the same Jesus Christ that rose from the dead will indeed come again (Revelation 22:20). Dawkins and Krauss may be leading the charge to eradicate Christianity, but it is the Lord Jesus Christ who will surely have the last word.

You should try reading the extremely biased link you've provided, which says:

"Despite their great hostility toward religious beliefs (other than their own) and avowal that they hope this film will help in their efforts to eradicate all religion worldwide, the atheist pair indicates that belief or non-belief in a deity is not what really matters to them. Krauss declares that what is actually important to them is that “everything should be open to question and that the universe is a remarkable place.”5 By contrast, he says, “This is more important to us than not believing in God—that’s not important at all.”

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/the-unbelievers-plan-to-rid-the-world-of-god/

 

[ScuzManiac]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a person who is interested in debate and convincing others that what you believe is true, as you keep saying you are. Turns out you're just a whiner.

Yeah...

There is a big difference in debating and saying "nuh uh" as he/she likes to do.

 

[ScuzManiac]

You should try reading the extremely biased link you've provided, which says:

"Despite their great hostility toward religious beliefs (other than their own) and avowal that they hope this film will help in their efforts to eradicate all religion worldwide, the atheist pair indicates that belief or non-belief in a deity is not what really matters to them. Krauss declares that what is actually important to them is that “everything should be open to question and that the universe is a remarkable place.”5 By contrast, he says, “This is more important to us than not believing in God—that’s not important at all.”

https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/the-unbelievers-plan-to-rid-the-world-of-god/

I thought the same thing as soon as I saw the domain of the site...

Hence why I didn't even bother commenting on that "source."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah...

There is a big difference in debating and saying "nuh uh" as he/she likes to do.

Yeah, and throwing a tantrum, taking your ball and going home.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought the same thing as soon as I saw the domain of the site...

Hence why I didn't even bother commenting on that "source."

For some reason, this is the second time I've commented on this "source."

 

[Serenity7855]

So, you talk about all these bad things that Atheists supposedly do....

Yet you commit one of the 7 Deadly Sins on a daily basis?

Yep, I do. I am far from perfect and have so seek Forgiveness everyday. I tend to make up my own mind rather then agree with someone is is just as wrong as I am. It is not over eating where I sin. I am a diabetic so I did the damage a long time ago now. I would love to sin with food everyday but it would kill me. You have touched on a very important point though. We are told that our bodies are the temple of God and that God cannot reside in a defiled body, so, it is really a sin to over indulge. American have a real problem with obesity.

 

[Serenity7855]

I thought the same thing as soon as I saw the domain of the site...

Did you really, only I left two Links both having the same content, however, there is no such thing as a truly biased site. It either contains the truth, or it contains a lie. It matters not what the url is or who posted the words, what is important is the words that are written. In this case they are in the form of a documentary and transcript put together by Krauss and Dawkins and sold for a very attractive profit margin. The contents can be found on numerous web sites, including Amazon, Imdb and YouTube. So your concerns over the credibility of the site is clearly unfounded. Maybe you should be a little more apprehensive over the posters you tend to agree with, especially those who have been proven wrong in their opinions and beliefs. You will be found just as guilty by association.

Hence why I didn't even bother commenting on that "source."

Well, the first comment I made sort of makes this one a non sequitur, doesn't it? The sources of this material is wide and plenty amongst both atheist and theist web pages.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yeah...

There is a big difference in debating and saying "nuh uh" as he/she likes to do.

Really, I have said 'nah uh' whilst I have debated. Please show me the offending post, or be labelled a blatant liar, who is using the misrepresentation card that atheists regularly use. It don't matter if they said it or not, just say that they have said it anyway.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you really, only I left two Links both having the same content, however, there is no such thing as a truly biased site. It either contains the truth, or it contains a lie. It matters not what the url is or who posted the words, what is important is the words that are written. In this case they are in the form of a documentary and transcript put together by Krauss and Dawkins and sold for a very attractive profit margin. The contents can be found on numerous web sites, including Amazon, Imdb and YouTube. So your concerns over the credibility of the site is clearly unfounded. Maybe you should be a little more apprehensive over the posters you tend to agree with, especially those who have been proven wrong in their opinions and beliefs. You will be found just as guilty by association.



Well, the first comment I made sort of makes this one a non sequitur, doesn't it? The sources of this material is wide and plenty amongst both atheist and theist web pages.

Um, yes there is.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Did you really, only I left two Links both having the same content, however, there is no such thing as a truly biased site. It either contains the truth, or it contains a lie. It matters not what the url is or who posted the words, what is important is the words that are written.

Partially true in regards to the content within. It should stand or fall on it's own merits, however, after some time sources obtain reputations for being either truthful or not. The link you posted is from a site that is known to be very biased in your (Christians) favor. I didn't look at the article therefor I won't comment on it specifically but the source it's coming from makes people wonder if it's even worth their time to read. It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf situation. Maybe it will contain some truth, but we've been burned before.

 

[Serenity7855]

Partially true in regards to the content within. It should stand or fall on it's own merits, however, after some time sources obtain reputations for being either truthful or not. The link you posted is from a site that is known to be very biased in your (Christians) favor. I didn't look at the article therefor I won't comment on it specifically but the source it's coming from makes people wonder if it's even worth their time to read. It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf situation. Maybe it will contain some truth, but we've been burned before.

I am sure that you are right. I do not think I have used this site before and I am not aware of it being a biased site either. I just Google it and that was the first site I choose.

Because this particular evidences comes direct from the source of the comment, and because it can be found on both atheist and theists sites, it should validate that the comment had been spoken by Krauss and Dawkins, so, to bring it into question must have been to facilitate a stall in the debate again. It really does not take that much to authenticate my assertion, therefore, it should have been left as it was. Unfortunately there are some who prefer to argue personalities and trivialities rather then topics, or just lack in intellect to see the obvious.

 

[Mycroft]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists...

Stopped taking you seriously at this point.

I have also yet to see your 'evidence'?

 

[Ouroboros]

Did you really, only I left two Links both having the same content, however, there is no such thing as a truly biased site. It either contains the truth, or it contains a lie.

1. The best lies are smothered with truths. New York exists, and in the city there are werewolves. According to you, either the whole sentence is completely false (NY doesn't exist, and there are no werewolves there, or NY exists and there are werewolves).

2. For someone to be biased, it means that they are twisting and spinning the truth and making it closer to a lie than a truth. So, a site can be biased, simply because if they're telling lies, then they're doing so from a biased perspective. So your claim that there are no truly biased sites is completely false (hence everything you say must be a lie, according to yourself above).

3. Information is rarely 100% true even if the author has good intentions. Language is vague. Information is incomplete. We are flawed humans. All compose a situation where what we say and claim to be true rarely are 100% true, and also unfortunately biased on some level or not.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Yep, I do. I am far from perfect and have so seek Forgiveness everyday. I tend to make up my own mind rather then agree with someone is is just as wrong as I am. It is not over eating where I sin. I am a diabetic so I did the damage a long time ago now. I would love to sin with food everyday but it would kill me. You have touched on a very important point though. We are told that our bodies are the temple of God and that God cannot reside in a defiled body, so, it is really a sin to over indulge. American have a real problem with obesity.

Yes, some of us Americans do.

But so do people in the UK and Mexico.

Did you really, only I left two Links both having the same content, however, there is no such thing as a truly biased site. It either contains the truth, or it contains a lie. It matters not what the url is or who posted the words, what is important is the words that are written. In this case they are in the form of a documentary and transcript put together by Krauss and Dawkins and sold for a very attractive profit margin. The contents can be found on numerous web sites, including Amazon, Imdb and YouTube. So your concerns over the credibility of the site is clearly unfounded. Maybe you should be a little more apprehensive over the posters you tend to agree with, especially those who have been proven wrong in their opinions and beliefs. You will be found just as guilty by association.



Well, the first comment I made sort of makes this one a non sequitur, doesn't it? The sources of this material is wide and plenty amongst both atheist and theist web pages.

Have you watched the documentary to verify the credibility of that statement?

 

[Mycroft]

Edit: nevermind.

 

[Serenity7855]

Stopped taking you seriously at this point.

I have also yet to see your 'evidence'?

Well if you stopped taking me seriously then you would not see the evidence as it is serious.

 

[Bunyip]

Well if you stopped taking me seriously then you would not see the evidence as it is serious.

You have yet to present, or argue for, or even attempt to debate any evidence.

So far you just copy paste ancient semantic conjouring tricks and hurl insults.