Yes I'm Atheist.
Yes I think the Olympic ceremony was disgusting.
We exist.
Yes I'm Atheist.
Yes I think the Olympic ceremony was disgusting.
We exist.
>onyxmoronic
Oxymoronic?
If that is in fact what you meant then no.
Calling your imported set of religious rules "morals" is.
>onyx, as molten rock cooled by water. meaning you have not used the air for morality(god)
Wat??
You are correct sir, I have not used air to derive my morality. It is in fact reasoned.
And God is now the air? That sounds like your own head cannon.
> but somehow automagially know right from wrong and pick righr.
Nothing automatic about it, and I don't always pick right.
Just leaving this here.
Don't confuse Atheism with Scientism
Just because I don't believe that there is a God doesn't mean I therefore believe the current hypothesis of the Big Bangโฆ
Has nothing to do with semantics.
>Aren't they distant cousins thanks to Dawkins?
You mean like how Christianity is all about scamming people out of their money thanks to pastors like Kent Hovind?
Your comparison doesn't really fit the pattern laid out.
The pattern was the claim that a single influencer informed the whole groups views. Dawkins vs. Hovind.
>anti-Christianity
Good thing I'm atheist, not anti-Christian. huh?
Someone gets it at least, phew.
>That's precisely the pattern from the clown controlled fake news conglomerate that pushes anti-Christianity narrative.
It was the pattern used to discredit my views, I just played along. Nice try though.
>Just attacking low hanging Christianity related narrative as an excuse to smear Christianity, huh?
Point to me attacking anyone in this bread?
I posted my opinion, in fact in support of the Christian view, and was attacked for it.
>That's called using the Lord's name in vain
>the Lord's name
Kent Hovind?
kek
>Yes
So you do understand the debate tactic where you turn the argument you're presented with around to show how erroneous it is, right?
I wasn't claiming anything, my argument was just as invalid as the argument I responded toโฆ