No matter what potty poopie you spew, you know you are a male hooker, you fool no one...and all that keyboard warrior routine, you are a coward and a punk....EVERYONE knows it. Your gay code crap, that is all YOU....tell us about it, as YOU keep bringing it up....of course, we know you have a real need for all the preparation H you be using up. For the record, how much do you use that on those lips or yours?


You are 100% queer and coward. Bounce all the BS name calling or what ever else you think you can do....you are nothing...a ZERO...a broke dick Male Hooker, whom hangs out at the truck stops....and yeah...you have that nick name...everyone at the places you hang out know you VERY well....Cup Cake. Very fitting for some small time Male Hooker...I bet you even have that on your forehead as a Tattoo...."Cup Cake"....yep. That is you....small time maggot, Male Hooker....you have a LOT on common with your new bunk buddy, Bruce Jenner....yep! A real pair of butt bumpers......

Now Marcus which one are you a Strong Atheism Atheist ? Using verifiable scientific method. Marcus you blew me off with these factual assertions.

Or are you a "Assured theists"

Or are you a Weak Atheism Atheist ? Religious relativism. Often confused with agnosticism

Or are you a "practical atheists"

Or are you a New Atheists – the New Breed of Atheism.

Their is a reason for this line of questioning, because you will not define your viewpoint and or back up your comments with facts, information and give an opinion on what type of atheist you are.

Which leads me to follow the next course of questioning or Pro Se?

Sparked any interest Marcus. You spout facts and information, but in all reality you are just bigoted and anti-God and anti-Religon.

Care to play the game, and move the discussion forward, or do we play the one-liner-attack troll-game.



Atheism -

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God's existence is unobtainable by mere man.

Many agnostics and skeptics are "practical atheists" in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) declared, and philosophers generally agree, without God there is no absolute truth and thus no universal moral standard of conduct.

Humanist John Dewey (1859-1952), co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), declared, "There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes."

Strong Atheism
Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything.

However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know.

Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know?

If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism
Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance.

Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below.

The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"


New Atheists – A New Breed of Atheism
They’ve been labeled, the New Atheists. If you’re like me, you’ve noticed this not wholly pleasant, anti-God movement everywhere. Whereas atheists of yore were noted for rational argument through civil discourse, today’s atheists draw on emotionalism and alarmism with a “take no prisoners” appeal.

Judging from their rhetoric, the new atheists appear to be angling for an all-out jihad against God and religion.

To awaken the masses from their slumber, Christopher Hitchens asks, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”

Convinced that religion is a virulent virus that results in child abuse, Richard Dawkins concludes: “I think there’s something very evil about faith.” And any reasonable person paying attention knows that something’s got to be done.

For Sam Harris, whose books have been published in 10 languages, it’s for scientists to destroy religion.

The sudden resurgence of anti-God sentiment has caused some to wonder why religious belief is generating such strong hostilities these days.

New Atheists – Passionate Dialogue

A few weeks ago, I was engaged in an online dialogue with some religious skeptics. Under discussion were the usual: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, evidence for the resurrection, and so on. For the most part, the participants were civil, without the animus characterized by the new atheist celebs.

After one of the forums was gaveled, a reader remarked on the intensity of the discussion. It suggested something of real importance; maybe something of utmost importance. Just what, he couldn’t say.

I responded that it was the outrageous claims of a carpenter’s son. For a first century Jew, claiming equality with God and forgiving sins were grounds for blasphemy punishable by death.

Even in our enlightened day, such behavior would be grounds for committal to a mental institution or dismissal as a megalomaniac or outright fraud. But with Jesus, there is the confounding issue of his teachings.

As C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even among critics, the teachings of Jesus reflect the highest standard of morality known to man.

Because of their supreme quality, Jesus’ imperatives are best explained not as products of a deluded or duplicitous mind, but of an intellectually competent person who actually believed what he claimed to be true.

And there lies the rub.

New Atheists – A Problem of Cosmic Authority

If Jesus was right about his divinity, then man is not a morally autonomous happenstance, he’s a special creation, a being that will one day stand before his Creator.

It is what Thomas Nagel, NYU law professor and self-described new atheist, coined the “cosmic authority problem”:

It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God...I hope there is no God...I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and is responsible for...the overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.

Note that Nagel’s disbelief is not grounded in a rational examination of how the world is, but by the non-rational sensibility of how he feels the world should be. In this regard, Thomas Nagel is not alone.

Folks like Nagel take pride in being members of the “smart set”—the intellectual caste trusting in the omniscience of human reason.

But press them ever so slightly and beneath the patina of intellectualism, you will find the non-cognitive: feelings, sentiments and personal preferences. “Dave” (not his real name) is a case in point.

In an online exchange, I was surprised that Dave shamelessly accepted features of naturalism that lacked validation, or even a means of validation, while rejecting theism for those very reasons. When this inconsistency was pointed out.

Dave responded, quite unapologetically, that at least his belief system didn’t require him to go to church, worship, pay tithes, or obey a rigid set of rules. When push came to shove, it was personal sentiments, not rational merit, that decided the question of God for Dave.

New Atheists – The Naturalist’s Fallacy

Typical of the new atheists, Dave criticized the morality of the Bible for promoting things like slavery, racism, the subjugation of women, and condemning children to hell who have never heard of Jesus (never mind some seriously flawed hermeneutics here).

He went on to contrast biblical morality—as has Richard Dawkins and other noted skeptics—against the golden rule.

Without realizing it, Dave fell headlong into the naturalistic fallacy: In a world created by colliding particles and shaped by natural selection, there is no right or wrong, only existence.

If everything is a product of matter in motion, the “Will to Power,” not the golden rule, is the only life principle. It’s the natural conclusion of Darwinism that the totalitarian leaders of the last century pursued with a vengeance.

That’s not to deny that religion has been a source of violence. But the casualties caused by Christians over 20 centuries dissolve in the shadow of those caused, in just one century, by atheistic regimes.

So despite what the new firebrands of atheism suggest, the real danger of religion is not that it promotes violence, but that it takes away hope. Let me explain.

New Atheists – Pop Psychology Meets Madison Avenue

In 1945, Abraham Maslow published his famed hierarchy of human needs. According to Maslow’s ranking, physiological, safety and social needs were on the bottom rung, with self-actualization or, as it was more commonly referred to, “finding oneself,” at the top.

Despite the lack of evidence for Maslow’s theory, self-actualization became the Holy Grail, and “free expression” and “choice” the seductive marketing hooks, for a navel-gazing public.

It didn’t take long for Madison Avenue to pick up pop psychology and promise self-discovery to all who affirmed self, followed their instincts and carried American Express.

But Jesus said that our deepest need is not in finding self, but in knowing God—by denying self, following Christ, and carrying one’s cross. He went on to insist that salvation—whether from existential ennui or righteous judgment—is not attainable by human effort, but only by a divine gift.

What a blow to our personal autonomy! What an affront to our self esteem!

For those convinced that happiness is found in the sacred quest of self-discovery, nothing could be more threatening. To those trusting in the perfectibility of man and his environment, Jesus is the supreme bogeyman.

New Atheists – Salvation through Science

As the new atheists like to remind us, we inhabit a planet scarred by poverty, disease, crime, pollution, and violence. Without God, these problems are left to man and his ingenuity to solve.

Over the last 200 years, man has been phenomenally successful in harnessing nature through the application of materialistic science. This has led to unbridled confidence that man, through science, will one day overcome the health, social, and environmental obstacles to a utopian existence.

But as new atheist Sam Harris warns in his Huffington Post article, “Science Must Destroy Religion,” “the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science.” Harris’s warning is clear. If science is our savior, then anything that impedes it is a threat to our future hope.

For instance, religious doctrines about the sanctity of human life are hindrances to the scientist who seeks cures through research on embryonic stem cells, the mentally incapacitated, the terminally ill, or prisoners.

The same goes for the social researcher who believes that population control is essential for socio-economic health. Revealed religion is also at odds with the investigator who believes that the gnawing questions of our existence will be answered in the quest for extraterrestrial life.

To those whose ultimate hope is in the limitless potential of man through science, religion is a danger more menacing than the Black Plague or runaway global warming. Consequently, Harris frets that “Iron Age beliefs—about God, the soul, sin, free will, etc.—continue to impede medical research and distort public policy.”

To meet the threat, Harris urges the scientific community to blast “the hideous fantasies of a prior age with all the facts at their disposal.”

Once religion and faith are vanquished by reason and science, Sam Harris envisions that the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu [will] be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is. And only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Mr. Harris and the other new atheists would be wise not to bet the farm on this hope. According to an Authority I trust, the church will not only prevail over all who would rout it; it will advance . . . even against the gates of Hell.

You see America Only, they the Liberal Atheist attack trolls, can't take it when It's on a level playing field. Or when someone shoves it back in their face.

The Liberal Atheist attack trolls, Modus operandi is just to troll and make comments, they hardly ever post-articles. And they never commit to but one-liner chicken-shit comments. Thats who they are obtuse assholes, If you met them in person they would never say these things, they hide behind a keyboard and computer screen,

Atheism has been exposed on the OPP forum. Praise God. Amen.

You'll never get a truthful answer from them, They really are some pretty despicable people.

At least with my efforts I now know the different types of Atheists are, and what they espouse, to become. The OPP website also knows.

Mustard seeds, America Only, Mustard seeds !

Most of the time they talk Chicken-Shit "Nothingism" they are unadulterated Chicken-Shit. Thats all they will achieve in life, Chicken-Shit status, nothing more.

They couldn't have a adult conversation on this website, if you paid them.

No Worries, when they take their last breath, they'll know the answer, to life's most famous question "Is there a God"