Creationists

[UltimateReality]

The problem with your nonsensical claim is that Harun Yahya groupies have no intention...

I love that guy. He's a freakin' rad muslim.

 

[UltimateReality]

I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

I'm afraid conspiracy theories and creationist falsehoods are not going help you. This country was established as a nation of secular laws.

So... You're claiming "Darwinism" is the cause of STD's?

No, that is what you claim. By the way, where did you go to college? Please answer. I am running out of nice font colors.

 

[UltimateReality]

Under Christian thought, humans have free will, which made it possible for them to choose sin, not God. Under evolutionary philosophy, there is no free will for humans.

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.

Projecting.

 

[UltimateReality]

It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.

Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?

This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?

You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.

 

[UltimateReality]

I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

 

[Hollie]

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

It is best you don't argue the above because you tend to dismantle your own arguments.

The facts are clear that the Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of religion, especially Christianity. They also knew that religions are poorly disposed toward competing religions. That is why they crafted a constitution which specifically kept a muzzle on religion.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution does not provide predictive power ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]

This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't. Darwinism is still BS. Dogs will always have dogs. Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex. Vertical change has never been proven. Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.

Scientists, Darwinists, evilutionists, ect., don't necessarily denigrate creationists for the fact that they disagree with science. The aforementioned might bring forth creationist claims with occassionally unflattering terms but that's because of the sheer ignorance, willful mis-representation and sheer stupidity of creationists. The aforementioned will expose creationists when they falsify references, figures or invent / alter quotations. But we don't denigrate fundies for simply being cultists. Anyone has the right to be a cultist.

 

[Hollie]

This is preposterous!! No one questions the authorship or credibility of the Illiad and the Odyssey.

Nothing in the Iliad was meant to be taken as gospel, or to be used as a religion to guide people's lives. It is simple a story like any other. It is uncertain whether or not it recounts true events, as the trojan war itself can not be said to have taken place with any certainty. That is a major difference between that and the bible, which attempts to convince people that they will go to hell if they do not believe, because an all-powerful, and all-loving god will send them there.

The iliad and the odyssey do not make claims about a god ruling over our lives, and does not attempt to tell people how to live, because they are not books that attempt to establish any religion. They may mention gods, but not to proselytize. It was merely part of Homer's belief system. The point of the story was not to attempt to convince others to believe in god. It was to relate a story.

Further, the consequence of the iliad being wrong, is of no consequence at all, as far as our lives today go. It doesn't make any extraordinatry claims, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

Actually, the Bible says people will go to a burning trash dump.

That's where the fundie arguments have been relegated to.

 

[Hollie]

I concur with Hollie. Lonestar, you ask me to "leave you alone," yet in no way, do you leave me alone. Christians have been trying to inch their way into the political establishment since this country started

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It’s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It’s a common tactic to claim “Darwinism” is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that “Darwinism” (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.

 

[LOki]

Evolution does not provide predictive power ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8"]Evolution Predicts Ring Species[/ame]

This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

I accept your surrender.

You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing.

Not even remotely true.

You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't.

First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.

Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.

Darwinism is still BS.

Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.

Dogs will always have dogs.

Not in contention.

Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex.

Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.

Vertical change has never been proven.

This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.

Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.

The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.

 

[newpolitics]

Many of the concepts in your post are flawed fundamentalist views of who God is and stem from a lack of understanding of Scripture. Scripture is "God-breathed". It is inspired by God. That does not mean that God's hand entered the authors hand and wrote it out. The Bible is written by real men at real times in history in real cultures. It is written from a human standpoint. How else could man attempt to convey the traits of God but by human descriptions?

This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?

You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.

There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. I think that's sad. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.

 

[newpolitics]

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit.

It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.

I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is best you don't argue the above because you tend to dismantle your own arguments.

It's best you don't make any statements at all because you dismantled your creidibility along time ago when you refused to tell anyone where you went to college?

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution Predicts Ring Species

This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

You've done exactly what you accuse me of doing. You think your attack on Creationism, which I don't subscribe to, bolsters the theory of evolution. It doesn't. Darwinism is still BS. Dogs will always have dogs. Dogs will never breed into elephants or giraffes or tyrannosaurus rex. Vertical change has never been proven. Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.

...that's because of the sheer ignorance, willful mis-representation and sheer stupidity...

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution Predicts Ring Species

This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

I accept your surrender.

Not even remotely true.

First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.

Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.

Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.

Not in contention.

Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.

Vertical change has never been proven.

This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.

Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.

The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.

You are so full of BS it isn't even funny. There is ZERO evidence for vertical change. Adaptation is all you got, homeslice. Evolution claims with enough time, some random mutations and some natural selection, and a few "just so" stories, a mouse could become a man. You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.

It is, however, blatantly obvious that you are going the other direction, a man becoming a mouse.

 

[newpolitics]

Omigosh!! You and Hollie are crazy!!!! This country was founded by Christians and was made up almost entirely of Christians in the beginning. It is the atheist fundie Darwinist who are trying to screw up the country, rid it of morals, and lead it down a path of death and destruction and abortion and STD's and homosexuality and AIDS and rascism and hate and obesity and sloth and greed. These are the tenets of Materialism and Darwinism.

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

True. It's especially disturbing when creationists are relegated to offering nothing more than really vile, slanderous claims that "Darwinism" is the root cause of societal decay. It;s a total abandonment of any ethical standard on the part of "religious" zealots.

It’s a common tactic of creationists to raise the issue of ethics in relation to evolution. It’s a common tactic to claim “Darwinism” is the root of evil. The issue that fundies try to sidestep is that evolutionary science, along with all other science, is ethically neutral. What fundies also try to sidestep is that their religions of fear and superstition can be the true culprits in terms of creating maladjusted personalities.

Attempts have been made by fundies to draw moral conclusions from evolution. One of these attempts is configured as the so-called "social Darwinism" movement. Another is the eugenics movement. Biological science will identify that the fittest organism within a particular environment is more likely to survive. This dynamic is extrapolated to propose that only the fit should survive in society. This approach is not without an entire collection of ancillary assumptions, none of which are purely factual claims.

So the game is played by religionists that “Darwinism” (aside from being a corrupting force in society), is the root of all insidious forces that corrupt humanity.

It may be the last, desperate tactic of fundie zealots to denigrate science. Effectively, all the fundie attempts to promote their gods have been dismantled by science so science is the fundie boogyman.

Yes, it is actually logical incoherent to try to derive an "ought" from an "is" as David Hume wrote about many years ago. You can not get a prescription for behavior from a description of behavior. Evolution is merely a description of phenomena we see in the natural world, and in particular, patterns we see in the change of species over time. There is no logical way to derive morality from this description. It doesn't logically follow. This is can also be embodied in the naturalistic fallacy, which attempts to say that "what is natural or found in nature, is good," which is essentially the same thing.

Ironically, it is only christians that attempt to derive an ought from an is with regards to evolution in attempt to show that evolution is immoral, but as you said, evolution has nothing to do with morality, as it is simply a description of a natural process, not a prescription for how we should act or behave.

 

[UltimateReality]

This sounds like an excuse for why god couldn't deliver a coherent, non-conradictory message. That's all i see. There is plenty of contra-diction in the bible, which itself contradicts that it was even god-breathed. What does god-breathed even mean?

You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.

There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. I think that's sad. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

 

[newpolitics]

You know what is funny about this?? Everyone always asks, "Why wouldn't God just tell us the answers? Why wouldn't he come to earth and talk to us directly?" Here is a news flash for you. He did. God became a man. His name was Jesus Christ.

There is no evidence for this. Just because it is written in a book, doesn't make it so. Multiple attestation is does not offer it any credibility, as multiple attestation can not be confirmed. Again, we have no signatures on ANY of the original documents. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all given later to these documents by someone else. As I said, the bible is not a credible source, especially for supernatural claims. We have no reason to take that book on faith, as this would imply be are skipping over the need for justification for belief. I don't understand how anyone could be so gullible, and actually think the bible is true, but the koran isn't, or that judaism is true. Its just a matter of where you live. If you lived in the middle east, you might be a suicide bomber who took an extremist view on Islam. You've been sold a package of lies, and you believed it. I think that's sad. And now, you can't assess scientific claims on their own merits, because you are holding them up to pre-established notions about how the world works, based on your theology. So, it is hindering your ability to see reality. That is the real tragedy with religious belief.

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.


How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that fucking arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go fuck yourself, and you're stupid fucking god. BTW, don't pray for me. It doesn't do anything.

 

[LOki]

This video is hogwash. I saw a bird turn into a bird turn into a bird. How do we get from a microbe to a microbiologist? That's what I want to see.

I accept your surrender.

Not even remotely true.

First, you're a creationist. If you subscribe to ID, you're just a less honest creationist ... and that's the end of that conversation.

Secondly, the facts of the matter is that ring species--not evolution--attacks your bullshit assertion regarding the predictive power of evolutionary theory.

Just like Newtonism, yes we know. Your superstition has all the real answers.

Not in contention.

Strong evidence that biblical creationism is an utter farce.

This is just a denial of reality. Proven in the absolute sense that you demand of everything but your own private prejudices; no. But proven by the strength of the available evidence, most certainly.

Call it a strawman, but according to evolution, if all the conditions were right, and the right random mutations were selected, this would have to be a possibility under your theory.

The way you present such change as being "according to evolution" is an OBVIOUS strawman ... a DELIBERATE misrepresentation ... a lie repeated by you again and again because you can't accept that your baseless beliefs can possibly be wrong.

You are so full of BS it isn't even funny.

Yet you continue to fail to demonstrate.

There is ZERO evidence for vertical change.

You may be right. I assumed to know what you mean when you use the term "vertical change." It could (and likely is) just more of your bullshit.

Adaptation is all you got, homeslice.

This is you assuming that you know what you're talking about.

Evolution claims with enough time, some random mutations and some natural selection, and a few "just so" stories, a mouse could become a man.

No. It doesn't. That's magical thinking. That's creationism.

You are an absolute LIAR if you claim anything else about the theory or pull out your pocket fallacy guide.

No. You're wrong. Again.

It is, however, blatantly obvious that you are going the other direction, a man becoming a mouse.

You're so remorselessly retarded. You never fail to produce the purest dumb.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is the harm of religious thinking. Right here.

The composition of our population and the constitution have nothing to with each other. What these people gave birth too wasn't necessarily christian just because they were. Anyway, they were deists, who rejected christianity.

Uggggh. I am not even going to argue this. Historical revisionism at its best. We have been down this road before and I have proven first: They weren't Deist in the sense of what we call Deist today, and second, only two of the founders could be categorized as deist. Please stop surfing atheist revisionist websites and bringing this garbage here. I have posted this ad nauseum over 100 times but here it is again. Enlighten yourself. Church services were held in the Supreme Court and House of Representatives up until the end of the 1800's. Yeah, cause that sounds like separation of Religion and State. Here is the link but not sure how much longer it will be active if the revisionists like you and Manhands have their way. Next up: Book Burning.

Religion and the Federal Government, Part 1 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

Even if all of the founders were fundamentalist christians, IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT. So, whether they were deist or whatever, is not of any importance actually. This an argument from authority, in a way. What they produced, what they gave birth to with the constitution, wasn't necessarily christian. It does not follow that what they produced has any of that attributes that they themselves had. If you read a book by a Muslim about walking dogs, does that mean that the information in the book is "Muslim"? No. it's just information about walking dogs. Same thing. It doesn't matter who it came from. If it is sound advice, it must be assessed on its own merit.

Wow, for someone who says they just follow the evidence you sure rationalized this one away. What evil hold does Hollie have on you that you are falling for her revisionist BS? Pick up a history book for Man hands sake. England had an official Christian religion. The Pilgrim's came to America to spread the Gospel. The whole culture was steeped in Christianity. Most of the principles the US Government was founded on are Christian principles merely because that is what they all knew at the time. I'm done defending this. It's stupid to argue something so easily researched. And by the way, the Founders WERE NOT Fundamentalists!!!! GEEZ, you people are so blinded by your own prejudice its nauseating.

It's the same as an argument from authority because arguments must be assessed on their own merits, not who is making the argument or claim. The same with the constitution. You must assess the constitution and what it tries to establish on its own grounds. When you look at the constitution, the first amendment clearly establishes a separation of church and state, so I don't understand how you can honestly claim that their being christian, or deist, has anything to do with what they produced. It doesn't. It is illogical to say so, and is in fact, a logical fallacy.

Separation of CHURCH and state, not religion and state. The Founders never meant for God to be removed from our government. Abraham [Bible Name] Lincoln prayed publicly all the time. So did a whole slew of other presidents with Jesus Disciple names like Thomas, James, John, and Andrew.

I can see how you may say the same for the bible, when I am attacking the credibility of the bible based on lack of authorship. The claims and the purposes of the documents are different. The constitution is not positing the existence of anything in the universe. It is an agreed upon contract. That is not the same as the bible, which tries to convince people of a supernatural diety, and makes claims about the universe, its origins, the after life, etc... none of which is present in the constitution. Besides, we have actual signatures on the constitution, and we have ample historical documentation of those names signed on the document outside of the constitution, verified by other historians. There is barely applicable to the bible. There are hardly any extra-bibilical authors that attest to anything about Jesus existing. Josephus' account is considered by all biblical scholars to be a forgery, and any reference to Jesus is simply as "christus" and only talks about some guy being crucified. Nothing about miracles, nothing about preaching, none of that.

You treat the Bible as if it is a single book. We do have many other historical accounts. There are many different books in the collection called the New Testament. Just because the works by different authors are lumped together, why aren't they treated on their own merit? Do you have any idea what happened to Rome? And here it comes, your appeal to the masses... funny that such a huge force in the world could be tricked by some sandal wearing dude making some crazy claims about being God.

History of late ancient Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia