?

I dismiss ANY comment made by a woman about men where if the genders were REVERSED, and a MAN was making a comparable comment about WOMEN, he would be met with hatred and scorn from women and their white knight lap dogs.

Do you agree with my stance? And if you disagree, provide your counterargument.

They post a question chock full of logical fallacies, then close their question IMMEDIATELY after replying to an MRA or MGTOW's laser-pointed critique.

Do you think they might be afraid to debate the issues they present? Do they think they're fooling anyone hurrying up to close their post before their 'additional detail' directed to MRA's is ripped to shreds, embarrassing them?

BQ: Would they be afraid to debate ME in the comments section after I close this question? I'll be nice: THEY can choose the topic! I'm sure with more women getting college degrees...

http://www.girlpowermarketing.com/women_statistics...

Please stay within our lifetimes, and don't include regions of the world where western men are coming back in body bags, already fighting for women's rights.

Would YOU date one of these women shown here?

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

BQ: Women, would you be cool with your brother or son dating a gal like this?

Of hating ALL women? Are they really that narcissistic?

using ACTUAL words so the spell check won't catch it? Then your answer says something completely different from what you wanted to say!

'We should respect murders' instead of 'We should respect martyrs'!

Women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree!

Roe V Wade gave women the right to UNILATERALLY choose to be a parent or not to be a parent POST-PREGNANCY. Do you think there will ever be a law that'll give men post pregnancy rights: The post pregnancy right to UNILATERALLY choose if he wants to be a parent or not?

This is a question about POST PREGNANCY RIGHTS FOR MEN. The operative word here is POST.

Now I get to see how many people out here know how to READ...

or a gerbil in a wheel?

And state HOW it's good for society...

If women believe a wage gap exists, that means we fund the majority of government services through our income taxes. I think they should thank us men for funding their health research at the expense of our own. I mean, don't we men die sooner? How noble of us! That means we also step in and raise the kids of single moms when they get the welfare. Aren't we men generous!

Any woman who argues against this is an admission of the wage gap NOT existing.

We men work the foundries that mold the metal that's put in automobiles [and electric wire]. We men also make the cement and pave the roads for those cars to be on. They'll stick a few token women in the plants to avoid being sued, but the cars and roads will still be built without them. So women, if you need a CAR, you need a MAN.

Is there ANYTHING a feminist, or ANY woman, can accomplish without the aid of men?

Am I the only one that thinks they're faking?

Since you expect to be convinced that God exists, let's see a little of your progress in convincing us that God DIDN'T have a hand in things:

The Big Bang Theory is a THEORY. Do you understand what a theory is? Where did the thing that banged come from? Answering that presents another question: Where is your proof that matter always existed (And wasn't created)?

Since fossils represent less than 1% (and THAT'S debatable!) of species that ever lived, when do you think you will have the other 99% to legitimize your claim that God DIDN'T create the earth and all living things on it? I'll be nice: How about 10%!!

Do you think 1% in 2500+ years of atheist history is a convincing record?

I can go on all day. But I will stop here.

I know when atheists get stumped, they tend to answer questions WITH questions as a dodge. They call this Yahoo ANSWERS for a reason! Desperate atheists resort to personal attacks when they can't answer a question.

The 'theists come up short too' argument relegates your set of beliefs to that which you criticize. That clever, but invalid, argument can be found on every other atheist answer here. I'll be nice again: You don't have to answer ALL the questions above.

Pick one!

By the way, I'M NOT CHRISTIAN.

Since scientists don't really know how life came to be and the origin of life is still unknown, should theists wait for the "evidence" that proves your position? If so, why, and how long should we wait?

And why do a lot of you answer questions WITH questions? They call it Yahoo ANSWERS for a reason. That makes theists think you're ducking and dodging the truth!

Atheists like to cite the absence of something as being evidence of something else, so...

Scientific evidence of what's NOT there proving that God created everything:

A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.

But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the STEADY PROGRESSIVE CHANGE of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up ALL AT ONCE and FULLY FORMED, and then it STAYS THE SAME.

If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record CONTRADICTS evolution.

Given the ABSENCE of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists QUIETLY acknowledge this is still a "research issue".

While atheists demand theists to come up with answers to their questions on the spot (ie. 'Who created the creator?') Why do atheists expect theist to wait decades or possibly centuries for science to eventually catch up to atheists' unproven conclusions like the one above?

If you can't answer the question, show some intelligence and simply DON'T RESPOND...

You know, like things growing out of the ground or coming out of the womb?

Is it magic? Or is it GOD?

If you say neither, enclose your explanation.

How do they prove to their children that God doesn't exist? How do they prove to them they have no souls and souls don't exist? What proof do they give their children? How do they prove although the world is full of complicated wonders, but there's nothing in the thereafter, that they will go to the way of nothingness? The proof that the fate of their children is the same fate as that of a child murderer, maggot, virus, Hitler, or a cockroach? Atheists constantly ask for proof of everything. What proof do they offer their children?

Ten points for best answer!

It's an anti-politically correct looks scale I made up for the ladies a couple years ago!

10- One in a million

9 -Model material, easy!

8 -Straight up fine as hell

7 -Attractive

6 -Nice looking

5 -Plain looking

4 -Okay...if you're drunk

3 -Homely

2 -Straight up UGLY

1 -Be scared...REALLY scared!

Sarah Palin, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, and the Birthers. Obama soundly defeats the threats from the right at the height of the Republicans' confidence in destroying Obama to the point that they catch collective amnesia of their previous failures and hit Obama with another threat: Bush pushes the economy off the cliff and Obama catches the rap for it falling. That's like blaming the body shop for the collision that got the car there in the first place! Will he prevail this time? Or do the Republicans have enough people brainwashed to pull this off?

Will they succeed in pulling off those racist, Jim Crow style antics they're doing on the state level of stopping poor minorities from voting? Republicans, your emotional responses are welcome, but have some tissue near...

Like atheists, I like to use cold logic in giving positions. The following is the reason theists know your position doesn't make sense:

If science is top truth, that means everything originates from something else. A came from B, B came from C, C came from D, D come from E, ad infinitum. The theist knows this is not possible, because if a position has to be explained forever, then it's not a position at all. But theists also knows everything has a beginning, and that beginning is God.

The cell to the animal to the land to the earth to the solar system to the Milky Way to the universe, to that beyond. Exterior infinity. The cell to the molecule to the atom to the nucleus to the subatomic to the quantum to the even smaller. Interior infinity. Since these two infinities were created and cannot be fully explained by science, then the creator can be none other but God.

The bee need the flower to survive. The flower need the bee to survive. Evolutionists believe bees and plants evolved at different times. The theist knows this is not possible. No savvy archeologist would dare attempt to explain symbiotic relationships, because there is no evidence in science to explain them adequately. The theist already knows God willed all into existence, and symbiotic relationships are easy to explain. This also explains archeological and other scientific finds that contradict common held beliefs and flies in the face of present supposed iron-clad scientific principles. They are afraid to make evidence that supports the theist public, and atheists like to play and act like these finds don't exist. But theists know better.

Since God created humans, and humans discovered logic, that means logic, and all other things known, and yet to be known, that can be used for good, are a product of God. This is why theists are flabbergasted when atheists attempt to use logic, something God created, to explain their positions.

The smartest atheist will attempt to explain SOME of the logical facts I presented, but dare not touch upon ALL of it. This omission supports the position of the theists.

Your thoughts?