Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

[Hollie]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

There is no such thing as "blind nature". That description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

 

[Hollie]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

 

[orogenicman]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You are making the classic "no transitional species" argument. News flash. It's a loser. All species are transitional. ALL ARE TRANSITIONAL. Write it down. Make a poster and hang it up on your wall.

 

[Hollie]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

 

[orogenicman]

If god created water and the law of gravity, who/what created god? Why would you worship a deity that doesn't reside in your universe? Such a god would have no vested interest in this universe, and so why would you trust such a deity to have your best interest in mind? Think about your response before you post, please. Hyper-space travel? Really? Facepalm, dude.

Why would you care what or whom I worship since you claim it doesn't exist? You make no sense. Why is God weighing upon your mind so much if He doesn't exist as you claim?

I don't care what you worship until your beliefs impinge on mine and/or those of others. And you religionists (particularly you Christians and Muslims) tend to impinge on everyone's beliefs, even those of your brother sects. That is when I respond.

Again your response falls on sand. I haven't preached to you or tried to save you or attempted to impose my views upon you. The truth is, I could care less about you.

You have made incorrect and demeaning statements about atheists for no reason other than the fact of the hatred in your heart that you hold against them. So to tell me that you have not attempted to impose your views here is disingenuous, to say the least. Take an anger management class, dude.

Indeed I made statements. Statements which you verified yourself.

So what you are saying is that you admit that your response to atheists is a result of your own hatred of them. At least you are honest about your feelings, even if they are bigoted.

 

[orogenicman]

Atheists constitute a very small minority in this country. That small minority is constantly accused by religious folk of "darkness" and "sin" and told to 'repent or go to hell" for the simple act of not believing as they do. Is it any wonder that they are constantly having to battle such people to have their views heard? I am sure it does get tiring for you to have to hear it over and over again. But then, if that is the case, why do people like you post such threads as this one? An atheist didn't start this thread. A religionist did. You people can dish it out, but you surely cannot take it.

But I didn't start the thread. I am me. He/she that started the thread is he/she. You fall on your butt yet again.

I didn't say you started the thread. I said people like you did. Try again.

There is no one like me. My DNA is unique unto myself. Try again to excuse your desire to showcase yourself.

Non-sequitur. But you knew that.

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

 

[orogenicman]

"Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man." -Professor Emeritus, James Conkin

The irony is that you don't see this dishonest, lazy system for what it really is, and instead of having a reasonable discussion about it, you hide behind 2,000 year old scripture as if is somehow valid in the face of 500 years of objective scientific revelation.

The irony is that it is on your mind and not on mine. As I stated before, atheists cannot conversed with one another because they would be fighting over which one is the more intelligent.

Tell that to my atheist girlfriend. We get along better than I ever did with my Jewish wife.

You really flatter yourself. Actually, neither you, your girlfriend, or your wife interest me in the least.

And yet you cannot resist responding to my posts? So either you are curious or you are a masochist. You don't actually seem to have much curiosity embedded in your personality, so I expect it is the latter. Correct me if I am wrong. Or not.

I enjoy toying with those who deem themselves elitists.

You haven't looked in a mirror lately, have you?

 

[orogenicman]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Non-sequitur. A dell is not biological organism.

 

[the_human_being]

Why would you care what or whom I worship since you claim it doesn't exist? You make no sense. Why is God weighing upon your mind so much if He doesn't exist as you claim?

I don't care what you worship until your beliefs impinge on mine and/or those of others. And you religionists (particularly you Christians and Muslims) tend to impinge on everyone's beliefs, even those of your brother sects. That is when I respond.

Again your response falls on sand. I haven't preached to you or tried to save you or attempted to impose my views upon you. The truth is, I could care less about you.

You have made incorrect and demeaning statements about atheists for no reason other than the fact of the hatred in your heart that you hold against them. So to tell me that you have not attempted to impose your views here is disingenuous, to say the least. Take an anger management class, dude.

Indeed I made statements. Statements which you verified yourself.

So what you are saying is that you admit that your response to atheists is a result of your own hatred of them. At least you are honest about your feelings, even if they are bigoted.

Actually, it's based on the scientific method. A great deal of observation too. I don't hate them, I am amused by them.

 

[turzovka]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You are making the classic "no transitional species" argument. News flash. It's a loser. All species are transitional. ALL ARE TRANSITIONAL. Write it down. Make a poster and hang it up on your wall.

What a cop out.

What a lark.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Non-sequitur. A dell is not biological organism.

No kidding?? I suppose its designer wasn't either? You continue to amuse me.

 

[the_human_being]

The irony is that it is on your mind and not on mine. As I stated before, atheists cannot conversed with one another because they would be fighting over which one is the more intelligent.

Tell that to my atheist girlfriend. We get along better than I ever did with my Jewish wife.

You really flatter yourself. Actually, neither you, your girlfriend, or your wife interest me in the least.

And yet you cannot resist responding to my posts? So either you are curious or you are a masochist. You don't actually seem to have much curiosity embedded in your personality, so I expect it is the latter. Correct me if I am wrong. Or not.

I enjoy toying with those who deem themselves elitists.

You haven't looked in a mirror lately, have you?

I am a rather handsome man.

 

[the_human_being]

But I didn't start the thread. I am me. He/she that started the thread is he/she. You fall on your butt yet again.

I didn't say you started the thread. I said people like you did. Try again.

There is no one like me. My DNA is unique unto myself. Try again to excuse your desire to showcase yourself.

Non-sequitur. But you knew that.

Yes. There is very little which I require of you to tell me.

That made no sense. But then, you knew that as well.

I know. I'll simply have to back myself down to the sixth grade level to communicate with you.

 

[turzovka]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

There is no such thing as "blind nature". That description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.

Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

“...the illusion of design.” What a stretch to try to hold things together.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You just don't get it.

This Dell laptop I am using here was once a motherboard, a power supply, a keyboard, a central processing unit, and other parts who's origin we do not know but were ally just lying around and strewn about over the landscape. A wind apparently came up and blew them all randomly and haphazardly together and PRESTO!! we have a working computer that came about without any intelligent influence or design.

That's a variation of the classically ridiculous argument coming out of the fundamentalist Christian ministries. There's a version about a tornado coursing through a junkyard and parts assembling into a car.

Here's a hint as to why that ridiculous argument fails: biological organisms evolve. Mechanical components don't.

The problem is that my Dell required intelligent design. From whence came that intelligent design? It came from an intelligent designer who's own highly complex cpu was designed by an intelligence higher than his own.

Yes, and?

Let's explore that. Your intelligent designer gawds then had an entire hierarchy of intelligent designers gawds designed by yet higher intelligent designer gawds who in turn were designed by even more intelligent designer gawds, ad infinitem.

Yes. I don't cotton to your tornado thesis.

 

[the_human_being]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You are making the classic "no transitional species" argument. News flash. It's a loser. All species are transitional. ALL ARE TRANSITIONAL. Write it down. Make a poster and hang it up on your wall.

What a cop out.

What a lark.

These atheists beat the heck out of watching reruns of "I Love Lucy" for sheer comedy.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't care what you worship until your beliefs impinge on mine and/or those of others. And you religionists (particularly you Christians and Muslims) tend to impinge on everyone's beliefs, even those of your brother sects. That is when I respond.

Again your response falls on sand. I haven't preached to you or tried to save you or attempted to impose my views upon you. The truth is, I could care less about you.

You have made incorrect and demeaning statements about atheists for no reason other than the fact of the hatred in your heart that you hold against them. So to tell me that you have not attempted to impose your views here is disingenuous, to say the least. Take an anger management class, dude.

Indeed I made statements. Statements which you verified yourself.

So what you are saying is that you admit that your response to atheists is a result of your own hatred of them. At least you are honest about your feelings, even if they are bigoted.

Actually, it's based on the scientific method. A great deal of observation too. I don't hate them, I am amused by them.

Erm, your hatred of atheists is based on the scientific method? What have you been smoking?

 

[orogenicman]

There is no argument to be made for the universe to have a reason for existence. That would imply intent. So yes, it is reasonable and rational to reject the idea that life and the universe are products of some underlying reason.

So blind nature had no intent or reason for a pancreas appearing when the animal that preceded it had none? It was just another quirky anomaly and a crazy coincidence this organ had a valuable purpose?

Nature is awesome. Especially when one considers there are trillions of evolutionary changes necessary for primitive species to evolve into much more advanced species. And with all of the millions of fossils science has found and identified, you would think we would have found thousands or tens of thousands of “failed experiments.” But does not seem to be the case at all.

And we might also find tens of thousands of transitional fossils between the more primitive species and the more advanced one? For example, if birds came from reptiles I would like to see hundreds of half winged creature fossils, not just that same old one that looks like the road runner (archeo...) they keep having to reproduce for all their text books.

You are making the classic "no transitional species" argument. News flash. It's a loser. All species are transitional. ALL ARE TRANSITIONAL. Write it down. Make a poster and hang it up on your wall.

What a cop out.

What a lark.

Facts are not a cop out. Try again.