AN EXAMPLE OF DELUSION

Recently, Lady Atheist published a link to an article that some idiot wrote for the Washington Times entitled, "Science and Common Sense Point to God". After I and several other posters refuted that claim, I got into a lengthy dialogue with an utterly deluded Christian who wrote several long, FSTDT-worthy comments claim that atheists were possessed by demons, and that is the only reason why we didn't believe in Cosmic Hebrew Hitler and his undead hippie son. After that, I found myself debating a creationist called Tim. Our debate was typical, really. He made ridiculous statements of child-like ignorance that would be laughed out of every reputable college in the civilized world, and cited AIG as the source of his "truth"(that, and Genesis). And so we went on, I crushing his ignorant claims, and he saying that Evolution (he made a point of capitalizing the word for some reason) was a religion, and had no evidence, and that the evolution of mice, viruses, and bacterial strains in the lab were merely "adaptations", oblivious of the fact that evolution's very definition is adaptations over time. To paraphrase Darth Vader, the Stupid was strong with this one. And yet, I find myself feeling more than a little sorry for Tim. His whole life, he's been brainwashed by adults who didn't know better, and has steadfastly ignored the evidence and clung to those beliefs like a child with a blanket. This is, creationism and religion in a nutshell.

"If there was a worldwide flood then one would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth; and that is exactly what is found."

So the flood happened numerous times throughout history? I thought you believed it only happened once.  How else do you account for the layers of the geological column?

"Basic logic suggests to Creationists that the mountains were formed by tectonic movement during the year long flood event."

How? What kind of tectonic movements? What modern evidence supports this view?

"Thank you for calling me an "idiot".  You sure know how to relate with people."

Your continued and willful ignorance of science is shameful. You can't even define the word "evolution" properly. If you don't want to be called an idiot, then stop behaving like one, and stop using logical fallacies in every other sentence, like appealing to authority, making straw-men, god of the gaps argument, argument from ignorance, self-referencing, and question-begging. This sums up every comment of yours that I've seen so far.

"My claim about the confusion of languages at Babel is based on the historical record of Genesis 10 and 11."

It is not historical unless you can provide strong evidence. Otherwise, you could argue that Achilles was indeed invincible down to the ankle based upon the Iliad. You are using the book to prove the book, a stupid, childish argument that only creationists make. You never really see actual scientists saying that evolution is true because a book they read said it's true, and yet what are you doing? Hmm? And evolution is the religion here? Hah!

 "Now, you prove the record is wrong."

*sigh* You seem to resent being called an idiot, yet here you are, earning that title anew with every sentence. Burden of truth; the one who makes the claim backs it up, or he's wrong. Furthermore, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 "I will not resort to your attempted intimidation of me by calling you an idiot, however."

It wasn't "intimidation", although I'm certain that calling it such feeds your persecution complex. You arguments are no better than those of a child. Provide evidence, or admit to being deluded.

 "It is not at all genetically impossible for three men and women to re-populate the earth.  Prove your claim."

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/15/9047.full.pdf+html

"I already know where speech came from and then the various languages at Babel.  man was able to speak and understand speech from the very beginning.  Read Genesis 1-3."

Where is the archaeological evidence for these claims? What research backs it up?

"I know that humanity began about 4000 B.C.  It is clear from the Scriptures."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

 http://humanorigins.si.edu/

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Wrong.

  "Answers in Genesis is an excellent source of information for inquirers.  I was just at the museum.  Excellent!  You should visit.  I did not expect you to agree with what they do.  Duh!  Of course not, you have a totally different belief system."

Evolution is not a belief system; it is a proven fact.  Proof.

"So, your charges are really meaningless."

AIG makes baseless assertions about radiometric dating and once blatantly redefined the word "light-year" so they could lie to a nine-year old. My charges are accurate.

"So, what do you reference for what you believe?"

I don't "believe" anything. The sources for my acceptance of evolution are the fossil record, modern biology (including the E. Coli experiment I linked to), and geology. Basic logic says that life on earth wasn't created all at one time, otherwise the fossil record would be completely different from what it is today.

 "I know some excellent geologists who believe in the global flood.  Perhaps you should take a class from one of them."

Who are they? Where did they get their degrees? How do they explain the fossil record? How do they explain deposition? How do they explain flood tectonics? How do they explain radiometric dating? How do they explain the super-continents? And why don't you make your own arguments, instead of appealing to authority?

 "I am not ignoring it; I just do not believe you have the knowledge and authority to be so dogmatic on this."

Dismissing an absurd story that has no evidence can only be called "dogmatic" by someone who is irrational. Am I also "dogmatic" in my dismissal of Holocaust-deniers?

"Just because you believe it's a myth; a myth it does not make."

Let me repeat for your benefit; that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Provide proof for your claims.

"I do not deny fossils at all, I just believe that most were laid down by the Flood in Noah's day.  That's all."

And you have failed to provide any viable mechanism for the dispersal of the fossils in the strata.They are not random, that are laid out in a pattern of increasing diversity.

"Let all readers of this thread take note that when certain Evolutionists/atheists converses with those who do not agree with them they resort to calling them "stupid" or an "idiot" in order to intimidate the."

Have you provided any evidence for your claims? No. You just self-reference and say over and over that evolution is a religion, despite the fact that that idiotic claim has been proven wrong countless times. Your willful ignorance can only be called stupid. You have no logic, proof, or explanations; you wave your hands and say "God did it!", like that somehow proves your hypothesis. Anyone behaving like you at my college would be laughed out of it.

 "because they know that the only proof they have is in their own, or others'. interpretation of evidence which is based upon their own belief system."

Wrong. Our interpretation is based upon common sense. Yours is based upon mythical presuppositions involving magic and gods. Evolution is observed in the lab all the time, and the wild as well, when mice adapt to pesticides. And only idiots called evolution a "belief system".

"What he means is that I will not accept his belief system (religion).  So, he wants to call me names."

By calling evolution a religion, you admit to being a moron. Evolution has proof; all you have are baseless interpretations that rely upon wishful thinking and hand-waving. Still waiting for your explanation of the fossil record, Tim.

"Take note, Evolutionists have absolutely no proof that Man evolved from Apes."

You, sir, are a liar and an imbecile.

 "There is no proof it happened and it is not happening now."

You've failed to explain the placement of fossils in the geologic column.  And the fact that they have to update antibiotics for evolving bacterial infections proves that you are willfully ignorant; i.e., stupid.

 "It exists only in the imagination, i.e. a fairy tale."

An apt description of creationism, Tim.

"Take note readers, Evolutionists/atheists do not like it when they are told that what they believe is no more than that, it's what they believe."

Obviously. Slimy, disingenuous lies meant to undermine scientific research is childish and pathetic, so naturally creationists do it all of the time.In the meanwhile, real scientists continue to find new transitional fossils, and observe species adapting before our eyes; while you people hide in caves and call it a religion.

"So, they take their ball and go home because you won't play by their rules."

When you refuse to acknowledge the legitimate research upon which TOE is founded, and display overwhelming ignorance of the scientific method, with only ancient Bronze Age myths to back it all up, there is no point in talking to you. Like your fellow idiot GoldenEagles, any attempt at a rational conversation with you is doomed from the start.

"I have seen this several times."

And you never learn anything from it. Why? Because you're dishonest. And as previously stated, a coward as well. I challenged you to come debate me here, but I suppose the odds of that ever happening are the same odds of creationists coming up with a viable model for flood tectonics, and how the fossil record was randomly arranged to look like 2 billion years of evolution had occurred.

CREATIONISM IN A NUTSHELL, VOLUME I

"In truth, however, the controversy is ultimately between two religious worldviews. The belief in origins, whether from a creationist or evolutionist perspective, is outside the realm of scientific study, and is, therefore, a faith-based viewpoint."

Liar. Evolution does not connect to the issue of origins (i.e., the origins of life); you're thinking of abiogenesis.

"An individual’s idea about origins, which means going from inorganic to organic, or non-life to life, is not observable, testable, or able to be duplicated or proved by experimentation."

Miller Experiment. QED.

"It is, therefore, a belief about the past, but is not a part of empirical science. So, scientists are only able to interpret the observable evidence in the present universe."

Okay, can we move past the obligatory straw-man and see some arguments against TOE?

"Both creationists and evolutionists have the same facts, but have a vastly different interpretation of those facts. The existence of the Grand Canyon is a fact and is observable in the present."

Fair enough, though two interpretations are not equal unless they have equal amounts of evidence backing them up.

"However, an evolutionist would look at this fact and say that it was created by a little bit of water and a whole lot of time, while a creationist, who believes that a worldwide flood occurred, would look at this same observable fact and conclude that it was formed by a little bit of time and a whole lot of water."

I hate to break it to you, but that is what a geologist, or a scientist trained in that discipline would say. The observations of erosion do not pertain to evolution, which deals exclusively with the development of living organisms. Erosion and deposition are geologic concepts, and cannot be directly correlated to natural selection, genetic variability, etc. Brush up on your terms and definitions.

"These conclusions cannot both be right, and one of them is obviously wrong."

Obviously. A flood isn't going to randomly erode a canyon without eroding the land around it as well, and we've yet to see a flood of any size erode through billions of tons of rock in 40 days. The Flood fails from a geological view.

 "Fossils are facts and are observable in the present; however they too have to be interpreted. Contrary to what most people must think, the fossils do not come out of the ground with a label that says "Hi. I’m 450 million years old. How are you?""

Again, a valid point; that is why we use dating methods to determine the age of fossils and strata.

"The only thing the scientist knows for sure is that it is dead. Scientists do not know if the creature had any offspring, much less any that were different from itself."

That's why we correlate the record as a whole, instead of focusing on the trees at the expense of the forest.

 "Most people believe that the scientific community has proven the notion of evolution with the fossil record, but nothing could be further from the truth."

Again, this is at best misinformation, and at worst a deliberate lie. Transitional forms have been piling up for a long time now, and I don't see any viable explanations involving magic or deities.

 "The fossil record is actually the most damaging evidence against the theory. First of all, the existence of fossils at all is proof of a catastrophic burying of billions of creatures in sedimentary rock. That is sediment that has been laid down by water, like there would be in a flood. In order for fossils to have been created, the creatures would have to have been buried quickly before decay, and before parasites could destroy them. Some fossils are of fish actually in the process of eating another fish, or of jellyfish, which are 98% water. The existence of countless fossil beds, in which thousands of creatures were deposited and buried at the same place and time, is best explained by flooding, or some other catastrophic event."

And what our erstwhile champion of modern myths conveniently forgot to mention is that the fossil record exists in layers. Certain phylums and species exist on one level, decrease in population size over time, and eventually die out, and are replaced by different animals that were not previously present. This means that they either spontaneously generated or were descended from the extinct ancestor species. If evolution didn't occur, then life would have probably gone extinct at the end of the Proterozoic, when life was thinned by 90% (National Geographic). For example, if the Great Flood was really responsible for the geologic column, then these fossils would not be organized, they would be chaotically and randomly scattered up and down the time scale. Horses would found with T. Rex, modern insects and mammals in the Paleozoic, and correlating different periods of geological time would be all but impossible. As my link shows, this in not the case. Humans and their immediate ancestors are not found below the Pleistocene, which only makes up the last 2.6 millions years of earth's history. Furthermore, catastrophic events do not preclude evolution, they merely mean that many creatures were buried at one time. And just to compound the overwhelming ignorance of the author, the presence of many fossils doesn't necessitate a disaster, but could simply indicate a large and thriving ecosystem. Most periods that contain large amounts of fossils lasted millions of years, so that the fossils accumulate over time.

"Evolutionary geologists would love to use a flood to best explain the observable facts, if it did not happen to agree with the Biblical story."

Geologists don't use your "Flood" story because one flood happening at one time cannot account for the half-dozen major extinction events that clearly occurred at separate periods from each other; not because they don't like your bible stories. Nor can it randomly organize the entire geologic column to make it appear as if evolution had occurred. Or did this magical flood happen several times?

"Certainly, from an evolutionary viewpoint, anthropologists would expect to find countless fossils of buffalo that were killed by the millions and left to rot in the American West of the 19th century. Why don’t they? It is because they were not buried quickly. For this same reason, fossils should be extremely rare; but they are not."

Creationism in a nutshell; misrepresenting the facts in a profoundly stupid manner. The buffalo were killed off to the brink of extinction in just over four decades[Source]. If it had been an extinction by natural processes, i.e., environmental pressures that the buffalo was not capable of adapting to, then it would have been centuries at the very least, and we would be finding loads of buffalo remains. Of course, it's interesting that we are finding them even now since they roamed the plains for centuries. One wonders why the author makes such an incoherent and self-defeating analogy.

"If evolution were true, the fossil record would look much different than it actually does."

As I outlined above, this is a lie that depends upon the reader being totally ignorant of geology.

"In order to prove the theory, it must be demonstrated that there had been incremental changes, or transitional life forms that existed and would certainly be preserved in the fossil record."

Transitional forms.

"In fact, transitional life forms should easily outnumber identifiable life forms one thousand to one."

Upon what principle is that assertion based? And why is there a distinction made between transitional forms and "identifiable" life forms? Many transitional creatures, like Tiktaalik, an amphibian ancestor to reptiles, are unique organisms that thrived for vast expanses of time, and whose direct descendants, modern croctillians, still retain many common traits with their ancestor, including the same basic skull structure[ Source].

"Evolutionists commonly attempt to use academic "sleight of hand" to demonstrate their idea. They will present a simple variation within an original created kind; such as Darwin’s finches or the popular peppered moth example which is in every evolutionary textbook, and then infer that these variations will eventually transmute one "family" of creature into another."

*sigh* There is no "sleight of hand", unless you're talking about the absurd rationalizations that creationists conceive to explain little problems with their religion, like how Noah's three sons managed to avoid inbreeding after the flood. There is no such thing as an "original created kind". The fossil record clearly shows us that present species on Earth haven't been that long, geologically speaking. There is not one single living species which has been present, unchanged, since the emergence of life in the Archean. And where does "kinds" fit into modern taxonomy?

"However, this is conjecture beyond the observable evidence. There is an insurmountable difference between a simple variation within a phyla and the leap from one to another."

Again, the fossil record clears that objection up.

"Dr. Colin Patterson, who was the senior paleontologist at the British Museum Of Natural History in London which housed several million fossils, was challenged in a letter as to why he had not displayed any transitional fossils in his book. Dr Patterson’s response was, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have included them. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."(1)"

Oh really?

"In reality, what the fossil records actually show is abrupt appearance and stasis. Creatures appear abruptly in the fossil record, and then stay within the same created ‘kind’ throughout the existence in the fossil record. This would seem to fit much better with the creation model than with the evolutionary model."

First off; [citation needed]. Secondly, how did these creatures "abruptly" appear at different times if they are all supposedly "original created kinds"? Shouldn't all of them be present on every level of the strata? You're contradicting yourself. This is why the fossil record fits much better with evolution than with creationism.

 "When Darwin’s Tree Of Life is presented in the textbooks, it has the very ends of the branches covered with fully formed, living or extinct creatures and then naked lines of imagination connecting them to what is considered to be a common ancestor: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil records persists as the trade secret of paleontology" (Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould) (2) The connecting lines are all conjecture and do not have any support in the fossil record."

Wrong. These "lines of imagination" are based upon observations of common characteristics shared by the organisms of that same kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc. That's why cephalapods like the nautilus, squid, and the octopus are classed together, with their tentacled ancestors.

"Scientists have attempted to develop elaborate theories to try to explain why this evidence does not exist, such as the Hopeful Monster Theory and Punctuated Equilibrium. (3)"

As has been pointed out, the evidence not only exists, but exists by the ton (literally). The "Hopeful Monster Theory" is a possible interpretation of fossils and experimental data, just as punctuated equilibrium is an explanation for evolutionary jumps in the fossil record. The fact that scientists debate these matters does not alter the physical truth of evolution, anymore than Einstein's debates over gravity negated or canceled out it's effects.

And so endeth Volume I of this refutation to the nonsense presented here. Expect Part II very soon....

QUIVERFULLS AND VEGETABLES AND CONDOMS, OH MY!

That's right, gals; you exist for one purpose and one purpose only; to warm my manhood and bear me a litter of puling spawn. Or so most conservative Christians believe.

Recently, Lady Atheist did a great post on the brood of Jesus Camp rejects known as the Duggar family and their creepy family values. Michelle Duggar, mother of the clan, was also on F.S.T.D.T. saying stupid shit that is almost on the same abysmal level as Ray Comfort's infamous banana argument. Can we be honest here? Christianity as practiced by conservatives turns women into bitches. Not in the sense of promiscuity, or being rude and spiteful on Monday morning, but in the classical meaning of the word; a female dog or canine whose purpose is to breed and bring forth offspring. They're known as "Quiver-Fulls". And the church seems to be just fine with this, along with the entire pro-life crowd, even if the fetus is doomed to a short, pointless existence as a brainless vegetable. Yeah, you read me. Just click on this.

And if that weren't bad enough, I found this rant on Ruthless Reviews this morning.

Fuck you, Pope Bent-Dick XVI; you and the syphilitic whore that you rode in on. Fuck the Vatican and the Catho-Lick Church as well. From mandating the spread of a fatal and easily preventable disease to raping Yig only knows how many choirboys and covering it up and protecting the offenders, you are a detestable collection of subhuman scum. You are just as bad as the Third Reich, and perhaps worse since you've been doing this for fifteen centuries and show no signs and stopping. And at least the Nazis had the decency to own up to their crimes after being caught; you can't seem to find that honesty anywhere in your lunacy-addled minds.

CREATIONISM PICTURE SHOW

Why bothering arguing with people whose rebuttals to TOE consist of claiming that you would piss yourself if you laid eyes upon them? Why bother trying to have a rational discourse with idiots who can't even define the word "theory"? Why bother referring to the geologic column and the fossil record when only the Wholly Babble is true, and everything else is automatically wrong? Why debate mindless cretins with IQs in the single digits who just repeat bible verses as a mindless mantra against reality?

What's a raptor in da hood ta do? Bitch owed me money!!

Yes. Yes, it does; why didn't they make this a display at the Creation "Museum"?

Rabies is a bitch. So is a hungry seven-ton carnivore.

NO GOOD IDIOTS

My shit don't stink! My shit don't stink! My shit don't stink!

"Sometimes in debates or discussions with atheists, the unbeliever uses the argument, “Well, you don’t have to believe in God to be moral.” In most cases, the Christian simply concedes the point and moves on.
I understand why we do this. I’ve even done it myself. However, I want to point out a flaw in our approach that can have serious consequences for the atheist we’re debating.
What’s the flaw? It comes down to this simple truth: There are actually no good atheists."

Hmm? I'm sorry, we're all bad people or something? Hmm. I feel like spaghetti for dinner...

"In the first place, I don’t buy the argument that atheists are good even when compared to the average lost person’s moral code. A person who denies the existence of a Creator has freed himself from any and all moral demands of a higher power. In their minds, they are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want."

Which is why we all run around raping, killing, and looting, 24/7, except for when we're having depraved orgies involving nun costumes and togas. Oh, that's not what we do? Then I guess you're full of shit, Mr. Wes Moore. Fact; ethics don't require religion, dumbass. Some people, unlike yourself, have grown past the need of having the truncheon of authority raised over their heads to ensure fair, decent behavior. We do unto others as we would have them treat us, because we're all in this together, and humanity has to survive as a group.

"If you could look into the secret places of many of their lives, I’m sure you would see a pattern of behavior that is far from moral.  As a former atheist, this was certainly the case in my life. Though I knew somewhere inside God was real, I rejected his (and, in fact, anyone else’s) authority over my life and allowed myself any form of sin I thought acceptable."

Your first bit is speculative drivel (not at all unusual for this guy's site).  I could just as easily say that if you could somehow gaze into the secret places of most Christians' lives, you would see a pattern that is completely amoral. But that doesn't prove squat. You claim that there are no good atheists, but since we conduct ourselves with just as much morality as you guys do (and in some cases, infinitely more) you must make up crap about how we hide it in our private lives. To which I say to you and everyone who  agrees with you; go fuck yourself. Secondly, if you felt that god was real, then you were never an atheist to begin with, since the definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. And even if you were, your personal experiences still wouldn't automatically apply to everyone else that shared the same view; you're projecting.

"Moreover, it is difficult enough to try to do what is right when you believe in God and fear his judgment. How much more difficult when you couldn’t care less!"

*sigh* By Cthulhu, what a propagandist you are. Do you clean your room because you're afraid of "judgement", or because you don't want to wake up to a smelly mess every morning? Eh? See my toilet analogy for more.

"However, even if you grant the argument that an atheist can be as ‘moral’ as any other lost person, from a biblical perspective you must realize they are not good at all. In fact, quite to the contrary, they are patently evil."

That's right, kiddies! You're patently evil for not accepting this beautiful, humane, long-running religion.

"Atheism is actually a form of idolatry. The idol in this case is man himself."

So by not worshiping the Hebrew Hitler of the bible, I worship myself instead? Wow! Thanks for letting me know. Maybe I can start my own church now and get tax breaks...

"In Romans 1:18-21, Paul says that mankind is without excuse for not knowing and worshipping the true God."

How, exactly, do we know this specific god is the One True Gahd ™? Care to explain how this mechanism works? We're breathlessly awaiting your explanation.


"Their rejection of what has been “made plain to them” leads them to create their own gods, which, in the end, are nothing more than an extension of themselves. In atheism, carved idols are not god, man is."

I guess Gawd forgot to send me the office memo, then; I've yet to see any credible evidence for the Christian Lich Cult*. And we've already established how stupid it is to assert that you just have to worship something, so if you don't have any gods, you worship yourself instead. Just because it's impossible for you to conceptualize a person whose life is not ruled by religion doesn't make it so. And I don't see any statistics or studies backing that up; just another lying christian hack with an axe to grind.

"These people, far from being moral, are called “godless” and “wicked” (v. 18)."

Is that the same bible that condones genocide, says non-virgins should be stoned to death, along with lazy teenagers, and people who pick up sticks on Saturday? What a wonderful source of moral wisdom.

" As an aside, based on this passage and others, I would argue that there is no such thing as an atheist. Atheists demonstrate the highest form of deception and hypocrisy, denying outwardly what they cannot avoid inwardly."

Based upon the bare assertions of a book filled to the brim with magical events, talking animals, resurrections,and impromptu violations of the laws of physics. That doesn't prove anything, Wes. Oh, and for that "inward" bit; [citation needed].

"Years ago when I was an atheist, I thought about God all the time. I couldn’t get away from the overwhelming evidence, both inwardly and outwardly, that my Creator existed."

So you believed god existed, but denied it? Then you were never an atheist to begin with.

"It’s the same with all atheists."

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You literally have nothing to back up your bullshit propaganda but projection.

"But, back to the point—what the Bible says about atheists. The Bible calls those who reject the existence of God “fools”"

And it also says that donkeys can talk, people can come back from the dead, walls be knocked down with trumpets, and the sun can stand still in the sky indefinitely. It's the stuff of stupidity, so naturally Wes and his mindless minions believe every word of it.

"“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1)."

The wise man says it out loud. And as an aside, referencing your holy book to prove the validity of your holy book is circular logic. Now get back on the short bus, Forest.

"Furthermore, the Bible declares that even the work done by an atheist (the wicked) is evil: “…the plowing of the wicked is sin” (Proverbs 21:4)."

*Yawn* What a boring twit you are. So an atheist who spends his entire life working for the end of poverty and starvation is doing "evil plowing" or some shit, while a rotten, sanctimonious little shit like yourself who sits around lying, projecting, and churning out slanderous propaganda is one of the good guys? I'll pass on that, thanks. Who in their right mind would want to go to heaven with you anyway?

"Think about it—what could be more immoral than denying the existence of the being who created you, gives you health and food and opportunity, and even the very breath you use to deny his existence?"

That is why the evil, wicked idolaters known as Christians will be cast into the deepest pits of Tarturus for their terrible blasphemy against Lord Zeus, God of Gods and King of Kings (others can play your game too, Wes).

"The problem with accepting this argument and not pointing out the biblical truth that atheists are not moral, is that it can leave the atheist with a sense of self-righteousness."

Idiot, modern Christians are the self-proclaimed arbiters of all morality; nobody is more self-righteous than you guys. And biblical truth is no truth at all--just ancient myths with no evidence backing them up whatsoever.

"I know you don’t actually believe the atheist is righteous. And I know this isn’t what you’re actually saying when you concede this argument. But put yourself in the mind of the atheist. You, as the representative of the Bible and the true God, have just allowed for the possibility that he is, at least in some form, righteous."

Ah, so when atheists point out the fact that we're just as moral, if not more moral, than you guys, we're being self-righteous, but when you proclaim yourselves the representatives of god himself and say that there's no such thing as a good person if they don't share your worldview(saying in essence that you're the only good people on earth), there's nothing pompous and self-aggrandizing about that. And by your own religion, christians can still sin since only blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a mortal sin; which means that Hitler may very well be roasting weenies with Jesus right now. After all, a serial child rapist and killer can repent on his deathbed and go to heaven while someone like Gandhi will burn forever.

"How can conviction come in this case? What will the Spirit use to bring sorrow for sin?"

Your face, perhaps?

"In the end, our goal is not to win an intellectual argument (though the intellectual side of our faith is very important). Our goal is to lead lost souls in repentance to Jesus Christ for salvation. Sometimes we forget about that crucial goal when we’re engaged with an atheist."

What "intellectual side"? When it comes to matters of intellect, your "side" has two things; Jack and shit. And Jack's left town.

"We can't afford to do that."

Sounds like an excuse for being used as a Swiffer in every debate.

"The next time an atheist says, “You don’t have to believe in God to be moral,” look at it as an open door to share the gospel."

 

I realize that you're an honorless  propagandist and a piece of lying shit to boot, but even someone like you should know that most atheists in America were christians before they lost their faith, and know everything you're going to say about the gospels before you say it. And it's what, 70% of the population who are christians?

"Tell him he can’t be moral at all and deny the existence of his Creator."

How convenient it must be to  have a world-view allowing you to proclaim everyone else "evil". In that respect, christianty is quite similar to Nazism.

"Walk him through the arguments I’ve given in this article and the Bible passages I listed."

What arguments, swine? You've given nothing but baseless opinions that every atheist out there recognizes as a lie.

"And then tell him about the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on his behalf."

Because living in a country where three fourths of the population are Christians, he or she has never heard about JAY-SUSS.

“But, they might get mad!” So what! “They might not listen.” How does that change anything? “They might accuse me of being intolerant.” What else is new?

Why listen? We've all heard this shit a million times before, challenged it a million times before, and refuted it a million times before. Like I said, Cretinists form their opinions in a mental vacuum, even when they're not related to science.

"We’re not here to win a popularity contest. The truth is not popular, especially among atheists, whose true, heart-level problem is not that they don’t know if God exists, but that they do, and simply hate him for it."

Congratulations; you're a moron. Please take a cookie and remove yourself from the gene pool. Because for me to hate a god that I don't think exists is like hating Zeus or Thor for... something. Existing? I hate your imaginary god for existing? You're clearly ultra-desperate, aren't you? You're a bit sad, in an incredibly pathetic way.

"What could be more immoral than that?"

What? Being an ass-wit like you? I can concur with that.

"However, at a deeper level, his ultimate purpose is not pleasure for humanity; it is his own glory demonstrated by allowing sin to exist in the world, and ultimately punishing some for that sin and having mercy
on others."

What do you know? That's the christian god he just described! He created mankind for his own glory, with no purpose but to worship day and night, for all eternity. Thanks for admitting that if your god exists, he's a worthless, self-centered prick like you. 

http://zionica.com/2012/04/09/no-good-atheists/

*Jesus was a Lich, LOL.