atheism and its follower are not bright

[IndependantAce]

I think if atheism was practiced to it's logical conclusion then it would advocate serial murder, rape, genocide, and pedophilia. Since if man is just an animal, morality is nonexistent, and there is no purpose or "afterlife", then there's no reason why anyone shouldn't do any of the above things.

I think the atheist sex criminal Marquis de Sade who believed all of the above was a true atheist, and that anyone who doesn't isn't really an atheist deep down.

 

[Syriusly]

I think if atheism was practiced to it's logical conclusion then it would advocate serial murder, rape, genocide, and pedophilia..

So you think that if you didn't believe in god- you would be murdering- and raping- and committing genocide and pedophilia?

Why do you think only your belief in god prevents you from killing others?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

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.

The guts of logic is not up for debate with your ilk. Prove God does not exist. You already admitted you can't do it.

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

The guts of logic is not up for debate with your ilk. Prove God does not exist. You already admitted you can't do it.

I think I already admitted I don't believe in your fairy tales and that I feel no more obligation to prove that your fairy tale doesn't exist than I feel an obligation to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

You started this thread to attack me- and those like me- because I don't share your religious point of view- because we don't believe in your fairy tales.
The thread started off with bigotry and dishonesty- and you have promulgated that for the entire thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Syriusly below:

 

[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

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.

Those that don't see creation as evidence for a Creator are fools, so yes, futile discussions.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, Berlinski is one of the true independent thinkers and intellectuals one can respect. excellent post and link, too.

 

[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.

Those that don't see creation as evidence for a Creator are a fool, so yes, futile discussions.

Did I mistake your words as a doubter of a Creator?

So sorry. My error.

 

[PK1]

... 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.

---
Biological evolution is both a fact & theory.
The evolutionary process of genetic variation & ecological natural selection is indisputable among biologists.
However, the billions of years behind phylogenetic development & variation among past & present species uses evolution as a theory (TOE).

Origin of life on earth is another matter, as well as Big Bang's "singularity" (cosmological evolution).
.

 

[Picaro]

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'.

See? You don't even have the slightest clue as to what was being said, which is why you should avoid trolling; you're inept at it, and obviously out of your league here. Hang out in the Music Forum, or over at the Lindsay Lohan fan site.

 

[PK1]

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

---
"Que claro" ?
Not "Claro que si"?

.

 

[sealybobo]

Just a simple fact.

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

First off, that says a lot about you if that's your understanding of what we believe.

Second, consider what you expect us to believe. You don't believe in evolution. So if you don't believe that then you believe the planet was populated by God with adult animals. Adult dogs, apes, giraffe, birds, snakes. Otherwise you have the chicken and egg problem. How did full grown rabbits get here? There had to be an Adam and Eve rabbit, right?

Is that what you are suggesting?

Athiest admit we don't know the answer to your questions. But you claim to know how animals for started on this planet and your explanation is ridiculous

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Why does it have to be a God? And has this God ever visited? Let's establish that first.

 

[Picaro]

Another hilarious fact is how these 'scientific facts' are suspiciously and amazingly very similar to the 'garden of Eden' allegory and the 'big bang theory' is another rip off of the God creation allegory. We already had Genesis; don't need another plagiarism of it masquerading as a 'scientific fact'. You know, the 'warm pond theory', big bang theory' thing? Of course you don't recognize the rip off ...

But hey, if any of the fashion victims here want to take a shot at Aquina's Five Ways, we're all here to encourage the 'rationalists' in their great demonstration of their Superior 'intellects' n stuff. Nobody will turn down a good laugh.

 

[sealybobo]

Just a simple fact.

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

Atheism make as much sense as a Divine being farting the Universe from it ass...

I say let people believe what they want to believe and if Science can prove something then by all means let it...

I know that is not how I am suppose to think and should just give you one big thumbs up...

And if Christians Muslims or Mormons can prove something by all means let it

 

[PK1]

...
we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

---
Are we not ALL ignorant about life's creation on earth & especially elsewhere?
Agnostics are simply honest about it.
Others are fooling themselves.
.

 

[IndependantAce]

...
we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

---
Are we not ALL ignorant about life's creation on earth & especially elsewhere?
Agnostics are simply honest about it.
Others are fooling themselves.
.

You can prove the existence of a higher power using logic

 

[AVG-JOE]

Belief in the possibility of God I understand...

It's the belief that one of the three ancient Arab tales about The God of Abraham still so popular today is somehow the last word on the subject that I find baffling.

 

[AVG-JOE]

...
we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

---
Are we not ALL ignorant about life's creation on earth & especially elsewhere?
Agnostics are simply honest about it.
Others are fooling themselves.
.

You can prove the existence of a higher power using logic

God is Love...

Love is Blind....

Stevie Wonder is blind...

Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

You can prove a lot with logic. Doesn't make it truth.

 

[PK1]

...
we are saying your are pretending to show total ignorance or purposely fooling yourself.

---
Are we not ALL ignorant about life's creation on earth & especially elsewhere?
Agnostics are simply honest about it.
Others are fooling themselves.
.

You can prove the existence of a higher power using logic

---
Logic without evidence/data is like a contraceptive for a fucked mind.
.