atheism and its follower are not bright

[Syriusly]

Empires come and go. It has nothing to do with the favors of the Almighty and far more to do with population pressures, diseases, famines, natural disasters, economics, overextension militarily, internal dissent, corruption in government, competition from other empires, and so on and so forth.

And that is a belief.

Ah I finally see what is going on with Jake.

He cannot conceive of anyone not 'believing' in fairy tales.

So he projects that upon those who do not believe his fairy tales- and assumes we cannot actually have different thoughts than him- since his life is based upon faith and beliefs he just assumes that is how everyone else must be.

 

[LittleNipper]

Atheists BELIEVE there can be no CREATOR. They do Believe that ...

---
You must be an atheist if you know what atheists believe, or not believe!
.
Actually, you also need to advance your education on "atheism", which represents many flavors, but in its most general definition, it is a non-belief in theism (a-theism vs theism; the "a" means "absence of", as in the word atypical).
.

You are the student failing to be the master.

---
Typical half-ass thought process, you have.
You make a general claim, but you cannot support it with any relevant detail.

Just a simple fact.

your premise is faulty.

---
Exactly.
Jake does not know simple facts, e.g., the basic meaning of atheism:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Atheism by itself has no beliefs related to "creation". Atheists simply do not believe what theists claim.
.

Atheists do not have the language or logical to disprove the existence of god.
.

Why do you lie to attack atheists Jake? Doesn't your book of fairy tales say something about 'bearing false witness'

As pointed out atheists simply do not believe in fairy tales- aka gods.

We have no need to disprove your fairy tales.

But I will point out that Christians do not have the evidence to prove the existence of their fairy.

If the Bible is but a fairy tale, then bearing false witness is of no consequence. Atheists have the need to prove God is not real. If in fact God is real, an atheist is in serious trouble. All the weight rest on the shoulders of the one rejecting. That one's future is at stake. A redeemed individual is free of threat. The atheist is the one who needs to do the proving to free himself of guilt.

 

[PK1]

Atheists BELIEVE there can be no CREATOR. They do Believe that ...

---
You must be an atheist if you know what atheists believe, or not believe!
.
Actually, you also need to advance your education on "atheism", which represents many flavors, but in its most general definition, it is a non-belief in theism (a-theism vs theism; the "a" means "absence of", as in the word atypical).
.

Are not most people atheists at some point in their lives?

---
Yes, ALL "people" are atheists when a young child. Many adapt to their dogmatic cultural demands without much logical thought and become theists, esp Muslims where it's dangerous to not conform within their cultures.
.

 

[PK1]

Atheists have the need to prove God is not real.

---
Not so.
Most atheists i know don't care about religion.
Same for agnostics/ignostics.
However, it's often fun to debate with religious folk who think they know about something supernatural.
.

 

[Steven_R]

Empires come and go. It has nothing to do with the favors of the Almighty and far more to do with population pressures, diseases, famines, natural disasters, economics, overextension militarily, internal dissent, corruption in government, competition from other empires, and so on and so forth.

And that is a belief.

Ah I finally see what is going on with Jake.

He cannot conceive of anyone not 'believing' in fairy tales.

So he projects that upon those who do not believe his fairy tales- and assumes we cannot actually have different thoughts than him- since his life is based upon faith and beliefs he just assumes that is how everyone else must be.

No, no, no. There were no barbarian tribes reacting to population pressures and Huns that pushed them into conflict with the Western Empire. Nope, God miracle the Roman Empire into falling. Sure it took a couple hundred years, but Goddidit is the only explanation.

 

[Picaro]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His self-proclaimed 'refutations' of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

 

[turzovka]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

 

[Picaro]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

I'm agnostic personally, but even a basic intro into the empirical method should make it immediately obvious that teaching evolution as a scientific fact is pure bullshit, which is why I have no problem with textbooks being required to include the more well thought out creationism theories along with the evolution fantasies; if one doesn't like one being taught then they should be truly rational and objective and leave both of the theories out of science texts.

Another absurdity is to promote the ridiculous hand waves needed to explain evolution, and then turning and claiming that using DNA to establish dates for anything is also 'scientific' and 'accurate'. It's truly incredible how blatantly and mindlessly these alleged 'scientists' contradict themselves with straight faces, just to avoid being criticized for not following the latest pseudo-intellectual fashions of the day. This mindlessness is even more obvious in the so-called 'soft sciences' and their ridiculous methodologies re homosexuality in the 'mental health' professions. Zero credibility from that field on nearly everything, thanks to their politicizing of social issues over genuine objective research.

 

[turzovka]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

I'm agnostic personally, but even a basic intro into the empirical method should make it immediately obvious that teaching evolution as a scientific fact is pure bullshit, which is why I have no problem with textbooks being required to include the more well thought out creationism theories along with the evolution fantasies; if one doesn't like one being taught then they should be truly rational and objective and leave both of the theories out of science texts.

Another absurdity is to promote the ridiculous hand waves needed to explain evolution, and then turning and claiming that using DNA to establish dates for anything is also 'scientific' and 'accurate'. It's truly incredible how blatantly and mindlessly these alleged 'scientists' contradict themselves with straight faces, just to avoid being criticized for not following the latest pseudo-intellectual fashions of the day. This mindlessness is even more obvious in the so-called 'soft sciences' and their ridiculous methodologies re homosexuality in the 'mental health' professions. Zero credibility from that field on nearly everything, thanks to their politicizing of social issues over genuine objective research.

Well stated, I appreciate your contributions.

There is another agnostic, Dr. David Berlinski, rather famous but also often vilified by atheistic evolutionists, who wrote an article long ago about the fallacies of all the evolutionists claim as fact, or even “highly likely” without any sound evidence to make such claims. So he is not making his contentions based on his religious beliefs which in some ways adds real credibility to his opposition. It’s a lengthy article you may some day have interest in reading, but here is an excerpt I have always been sort of amused with.

The Deniable Darwin | Center for Science and Culture

The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now we see the "agnostic" [que claro] and the Catholic inquisitor having fun.

 

[Syriusly]

Atheists BELIEVE there can be no CREATOR. They do Believe that ...

---
You must be an atheist if you know what atheists believe, or not believe!
.
Actually, you also need to advance your education on "atheism", which represents many flavors, but in its most general definition, it is a non-belief in theism (a-theism vs theism; the "a" means "absence of", as in the word atypical).
.

You are the student failing to be the master.

---
Typical half-ass thought process, you have.
You make a general claim, but you cannot support it with any relevant detail.

Just a simple fact.

your premise is faulty.

---
Exactly.
Jake does not know simple facts, e.g., the basic meaning of atheism:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Atheism by itself has no beliefs related to "creation". Atheists simply do not believe what theists claim.
.

Atheists do not have the language or logical to disprove the existence of god.
.

Why do you lie to attack atheists Jake? Doesn't your book of fairy tales say something about 'bearing false witness'

As pointed out atheists simply do not believe in fairy tales- aka gods.

We have no need to disprove your fairy tales.

But I will point out that Christians do not have the evidence to prove the existence of their fairy.

If the Bible is but a fairy tale, then bearing false witness is of no consequence. Atheists have the need to prove God is not real. I.

I certainly think the Bible is a fairy tale- but I would hope those who think of it as more would follow the rules of their fairy tale book.

Why would I have any need to prove God is not real?

Any more than i have a need to prove stamp collecting is not a hobby, just because I don't collect stamps?

 

[Syriusly]

Atheists have the need to prove God is not real.

---
Not so.
Most atheists i know don't care about religion.
Same for agnostics/ignostics.
However, it's often fun to debate with religious folk who think they know about something supernatural.
.

Remember it wasn't an atheist who started this thread.

Just another Christian feeling so threatened by atheists that he felt a need to attack those who don't share his belief in fairy tales.

 

[Votto]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Who made God?

God made everything, including time dingleberry

 

[Syriusly]

R; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

And by 'improbabilities' you mean the lack of imagination and vision of the vastness of Earth history by close minded creationists.

Evolution is proven- some of the details are still unknown but the general process of evolution is well document.

As opposed to believing an unseen and completely unproven 'god'- which you folks can't even agree which god is the 'god'.

 

[Syriusly]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

I'm agnostic personally, but even a basic intro into the empirical method should make it immediately obvious that teaching evolution as a scientific fact is pure bullshit, which is why I have no problem with textbooks being required to include the more well thought out creationism theories along with the evolution fantasies; .

Oh please tell us about about the 'well thought out creationism theories'- and the evidence that supports them- versus the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Evolution is the only theory in which the facts- biology, fossil records and DNA- fit the theory.

 

[turzovka]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Who made God?

God made everything, including time dingleberry

That was plain stupid. (imo)

Either that, or a very asinine defense of implying "there is no evidence of intelligent design."

That's like saying, "yes, it seems apparent the watch needed to be made by an intelligent designer, but until you can tell me who made the intelligent designer himself I will not accept the watch was made by an intelligent designer."

Futile discussions.

 

[turzovka]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

I'm agnostic personally, but even a basic intro into the empirical method should make it immediately obvious that teaching evolution as a scientific fact is pure bullshit, which is why I have no problem with textbooks being required to include the more well thought out creationism theories along with the evolution fantasies; .

Oh please tell us about about the 'well thought out creationism theories'- and the evidence that supports them- versus the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Evolution is the only theory in which the facts- biology, fossil records and DNA- fit the theory.

Missing the point of contention on purpose?
Yes, I believe you are.

Whether God created life via creationism or via evolution is not the subject, einstein.

We are conceding evolution for the premise of this discussion.
You, however, contend there no evidence of an intelligent designer or God in the process. And we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

 

[Syriusly]

Richard " a little pedophilia is okay" Dawkins is a classical example of the OP's premise, basically unable to comprehend even the most basic logic. His 'refutation's of Anselm's theses and Thomas Aquina's Five Ways stands as masterpieces of confused idiocy, and his cult followers are even less competent.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Richard Dawkins Failed Rebuttal of Natural Theology - Peter S. Williams

I love how some keep bringing up Bertrand Russell as some appeal to authority, never mind the fact that his co-author in his most famous book on logic was Alfred North Whitehead, a devout Christian, and obviously Russell didn't seem to consider him 'stupid'.

For even more absurdities in reasoning, one can find Dawkin's obtuse and ridiculous defenses of 'evolution' as a fact, and not just a speculation built as much on faith as some of the more simplistic creationism theories; he has no ability to explain away the mind-bending series of improbabilities and accidental mutations that run into exponents in the hundreds and thousands at every step of the process.

You are quite right --- "probabilities" are not the evolutionist's friend.
The non-ID evoluntionists have two gods --- time and chance --- and chance is mortally wounded by reason and probability. .

I'm agnostic personally, but even a basic intro into the empirical method should make it immediately obvious that teaching evolution as a scientific fact is pure bullshit, which is why I have no problem with textbooks being required to include the more well thought out creationism theories along with the evolution fantasies; .

Oh please tell us about about the 'well thought out creationism theories'- and the evidence that supports them- versus the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

Evolution is the only theory in which the facts- biology, fossil records and DNA- fit the theory.

Missing the point of contention on purpose?
Yes, I believe you are.

Whether God created life via creationism or via evolution is not the subject, einstein.

We are conceding evolution for the premise of this discussion.
You, however, contend there no evidence of an intelligent designer or God in the process. And we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

Well glad you agree that evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence that we have.

So show me the evidence that God created life. Or Evolution. Or anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists BELIEVE there can be no CREATOR. They do Believe that ...

---
You must be an atheist if you know what atheists believe, or not believe!
.
Actually, you also need to advance your education on "atheism", which represents many flavors, but in its most general definition, it is a non-belief in theism (a-theism vs theism; the "a" means "absence of", as in the word atypical).
.

You are the student failing to be the master.

---
Typical half-ass thought process, you have.
You make a general claim, but you cannot support it with any relevant detail.

your premise is faulty.

---
Exactly.
Jake does not know simple facts, e.g., the basic meaning of atheism:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Atheism by itself has no beliefs related to "creation". Atheists simply do not believe what theists claim.
.

Atheists do not have the language or logical to disprove the existence of god.
.

Why do you lie to attack atheists Jake? Doesn't your book of fairy tales say something about 'bearing false witness'

As pointed out atheists simply do not believe in fairy tales- aka gods.

We have no need to disprove your fairy tales.

But I will point out that Christians do not have the evidence to prove the existence of their fairy.

If the Bible is but a fairy tale, then bearing false witness is of no consequence. Atheists have the need to prove God is not real. I.

I certainly think the Bible is a fairy tale- but I would hope those who think of it as more would follow the rules of their fairy tale book.

Why would I have any need to prove God is not real?

Any more than i have a need to prove stamp collecting is not a hobby, just because I don't collect stamps?

Fallacy of false equivalencies

 

[Syriusly]

---
You must be an atheist if you know what atheists believe, or not believe!
.
Actually, you also need to advance your education on "atheism", which represents many flavors, but in its most general definition, it is a non-belief in theism (a-theism vs theism; the "a" means "absence of", as in the word atypical).
.

You are the student failing to be the master.

---
Typical half-ass thought process, you have.
You make a general claim, but you cannot support it with any relevant detail.

---
Exactly.
Jake does not know simple facts, e.g., the basic meaning of atheism:
"lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Atheism by itself has no beliefs related to "creation". Atheists simply do not believe what theists claim.
.

Atheists do not have the language or logical to disprove the existence of god.
.

Why do you lie to attack atheists Jake? Doesn't your book of fairy tales say something about 'bearing false witness'

As pointed out atheists simply do not believe in fairy tales- aka gods.

We have no need to disprove your fairy tales.

But I will point out that Christians do not have the evidence to prove the existence of their fairy.

If the Bible is but a fairy tale, then bearing false witness is of no consequence. Atheists have the need to prove God is not real. I.

I certainly think the Bible is a fairy tale- but I would hope those who think of it as more would follow the rules of their fairy tale book.

Why would I have any need to prove God is not real?

Any more than i have a need to prove stamp collecting is not a hobby, just because I don't collect stamps?

Fallacy of false equivalencies

Pseudo intellectual rationalism for your attacks on those who do not share your beliefs in fairy tales.