Faith is Born from Fear

[JimBowie1958]

What I find interesting is that my challenge to your pointless and useless enlistment of philosophy and theology vs. the methods of science to advance knowledge leaves you stuttering and mumbling with duck jokes.

As usual, your utter inability to defend the theistic worldview, wherein you live in trembling fear of angry gawds and fantastical claims of an inversion of a reality based existence is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. You revile science because it strips away the fears and superstitions you require to maintain your religious dogma. You require that there remain questions about the natural world that mankind can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you fundie zealots don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "Gawds did it, and that's that."

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand that those three words, "Gawds did it" are enough for a lot of people, but people of careful thought should be deeply dissatisfied with it. That they are not smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.

A man walks into a bar and ducks.

It's an exercise in futility dealing with self created victims of ignorance.

Gag a zealot. Shake a shiny object before his crazed eyes to get his attention. Calmly delineate in simple declarative sentences of user-friendly monosyllables a logical progression of facts, science and demonstration. Nod reassuringly. Slowly remove the gag. It is inevitable that the zealot will defiantly screech and sputter some pointlessness about ducks.

Once someone has convinced themselves of a a fallacy it is all but impossible to get them to understand that they are wrong. Those that believed that there were WMD's in Iraq still believe it even after it was proven that they weren't there.

Yes, they were. Curveballs WMDs were just made up, but Hussein still had weapons from the 1980s in storage, and though corroded and useless, the WMD critical agents could have been removed and put into new artillery shells easily enough.

Defense.gov News Article Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria Official Says

The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.
The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.
"Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent," he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person's lungs.
The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.
While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.
This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.
"Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

So yes, Hussein still had WMDs and it has been proven. But m ore than that, he had failed to adequately document the destruction of all his WMDs anyway, thus giving another cause for invasion.

It is ironic that any libtard like you would ever claim that others use confirmation bias when that is the bread and butter of atheists 24/7.

For theists to engage in rational logical thought and reach a reasoned conclusion that their religion is based upon their own fears means that they would have to admit that they have been lied to by those who taught them that religion and that they have lied to those they have taught in turn.

Plato and Aristitle came to the same beliefs in a Creator using reason without the help of any Judeo-Christian leaders, so your bullshit is obvious just that; 100% high grade pure bullshit.

None of them are willing to face that truth about themselves and others. So instead they stubbornly continue to believe their myths and hate those who are not living the same lie that they are on a daily basis.

Lol, it is you who refuse to face facts that you disagree with and do not have the simple courage to engage in honest discussion. The historical record of atheist governments in the 20th century demonstrates it in blood.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Once someone has convinced themselves of a a fallacy it is all but impossible to get them to understand that they are wrong. Those that believed that there were WMD's in Iraq still believe it even after it was proven that they weren't there.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. . . . Post #431, Einstein.

See what I mean? The new atheists never actually get around to facing, let along discussing, the pertinent philosophical or scientific issues. It's always this boorish personal crap, or the meanderings of teleological, anthropological or psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when they're not mangling the metaphysics.

Derideo_Te walks into a bar and ducks. LOL!

 

[JimBowie1958]

It seems you do at least consider a classical religious idea, if not one typically considered in the west. Taking it one step higher, if we are but parts of a greater whole then it really isn't hostile to life at all. A rain drop falling into the ocean loses nothing except being a drop, and gains much by becoming an ocean.

While I recognize some sort of eastern philosophy my thing's actually from the pov of physics. At the atomic level, there's no appreciable separation from one atom to another atom. Where the atoms which make up my feet meet the atoms which make up the ground is neglible. Extended out to the whole of the universe, since even space is made up of something (dark matter et al.) then where the atoms which make up my foot touch the earth, the arth touches the atoms of the atmosphere which touch the atoms of space...Thus we're in a literal, empirical sense, one thing.

The more you study the physical world, the more you see it's not what it appears. More and more the idea of "mass" has become outdated. Before the atom was thought to be comprised of an energy particle and a mass particle but more and more, even the mass is just energy.

There is a sameness to atoms, they're neutrons, protons, and electrons. If that's all there is, then nothing matters. Death isn't sad, the physical laws tell us nothing is destroyed, only converted to another form. Violence doesn't matter. There is no choice, no love, everything is just some chemical reaction and following laws of physics. Nothing is right or wrong.

"The more you study the physical world, the more you see it's not what it appears."

Another "grad'uate" of the Jimmy Swaggert School of the Silly

He is exactly right and if you knew the slightest factoids about QM and had even a smidgeon of honesty you would agree that Malamute was right.

So of course you wont.

 

[Dot Com]

religion is a cudgel of the majority whilst simultaneously being a crutch of the timid

 

[JimBowie1958]

religion is a cudgel of the majority whilst simultaneously being a crutch of the timid

So says the secular zealot who does not respect equal standing in a court of law for all regardless of religion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

religion is a cudgel of the majority whilst simultaneously being a crutch of the timid

Yup, there are a lot of posters around here who use their bibles as blunt objects.

 

[JimBowie1958]

religion is a cudgel of the majority whilst simultaneously being a crutch of the timid

Yup, there are a lot of posters around here who use their bibles as blunt objects.

And you are the 'blunt object' that tries to use the Bible; irony abounds!

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is borne from:

1. Arrogance
2. Selfishness
3. Self Centeredness

The above is just silly. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

 

[Hollie]

What I find interesting is that my challenge to your pointless and useless enlistment of philosophy and theology vs. the methods of science to advance knowledge leaves you stuttering and mumbling with duck jokes.

As usual, your utter inability to defend the theistic worldview, wherein you live in trembling fear of angry gawds and fantastical claims of an inversion of a reality based existence is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. You revile science because it strips away the fears and superstitions you require to maintain your religious dogma. You require that there remain questions about the natural world that mankind can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you fundie zealots don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "Gawds did it, and that's that."

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand that those three words, "Gawds did it" are enough for a lot of people, but people of careful thought should be deeply dissatisfied with it. That they are not smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.

A man walks into a bar and ducks.

I get the bar part, but why walk into ducks?

Because he has no viable argument that doesn't rely on appeals to fear and superstition. Hence, he has no choice but to spam the thread with pointless babble.

Uh-huh. Right. Post #431.

Hollie walks into a bar and ducks. LOL!

At this point, You're left to spam the thread because your weak attempt at argument was thoroughly dismantled as pointless and unsupportable.

 

[Hollie]

What I find interesting is that my challenge to your pointless and useless enlistment of philosophy and theology vs. the methods of science to advance knowledge leaves you stuttering and mumbling with duck jokes.

As usual, your utter inability to defend the theistic worldview, wherein you live in trembling fear of angry gawds and fantastical claims of an inversion of a reality based existence is actually pretty nihilistic and child-like. You revile science because it strips away the fears and superstitions you require to maintain your religious dogma. You require that there remain questions about the natural world that mankind can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic and child-like point of view, and you fundie zealots don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "Gawds did it, and that's that."

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand that those three words, "Gawds did it" are enough for a lot of people, but people of careful thought should be deeply dissatisfied with it. That they are not smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a sometimes cold-- but understandable-- reality.

A man walks into a bar and ducks.

I get the bar part, but why walk into ducks?

The gist of that goes back to this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9721287/.

The point is that the new atheists never get to the science on these forums. All they ever do is philosophize . . . badly, as they stupidly imagine themselves not to be philosophizing. LOL!

For example, in response to the new atheism's God in the gaps myth I wrote the following, which alludes to the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism in bold:

In addition to (1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they [for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton. . . .] did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.​

See posts #367, #369, #372 and #375.

In these posts, on every point, the new atheism is routed.

Earlier on this thread and elsewhere on this forum, I've discussed precisely what the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism are, beginning with the implications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the problem of the infinite regression of origin, including it's ontological alternatives and the ramifications thereof. I've even explained to our amateurish new atheists why Hawking's baby talk about how the cosmos would have necessarily arisen due to the fact of the principles of gravity is inherently contradictory and self-negating. Right. Hawking resolved the problem of infinite regression of origin, as if the quantum vacuum were a metaphysical nothingness or must have always existed prior to the cosmos.

"Oh? Why would that necessarily be?" the centuries-old cannon of the greatest minds of philosophical and theological thought asks.

The philosophizing Hawking, who obviously has not resolved the problem and doesn't even appear to understand the question, obtusely responds: "Philosophy is dead."

LOL!

Hawking isn't talking science. He's talking metaphysics. But even more to the point: the quantum vacuum arguably resembles the very essence of divinity itself or the essence of its methodology behind the veil of the space-time continuum for all that he or anybody knows.

What atheist on this forum has ever directly addressed my observations regarding the logic of theism, which is, in fact, objectively and universally apparent to all . . . whether one subsequently decides to embrace God's existence as a fact based on that logic or not.

Answer: Never!

Ironically, AtheistBuddah is the only one I've encountered on this forum who has ever come close. Hollie is an utter waste of time with regard to both the philosophical and the scientific concerns: a man walks into a bar and ducks.

Aside from those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, anybody with an IQ above that of a gnat grasps the fact that theism is not based on faith, but reason. Moreover, the notion that theism is based on fear is redundantly stupid, while the notion that faith is based on fear is exponentially stupid, as both an atheist and a number of theists have irrefutably shown on this thread.

Faith doesn't even factor into the equation until one gets to theology, and theological faith that is not backed by the known facts and reason is useless.

And now we come to the clincher. It has been suggested that science, which necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, a fact that flies right over the new atheist's head, as if empirical data interpreted themselves, as if the methodology of science established itself, as if the entire enterprise of science were not necessarily contingent to the philosophy of science, is the cat's only meow.

Thusly, the obtuse new atheist thinks to philosophize the universally apparent facts of theism's rational and ontological justifications out of existence, rather than honestly engage them. The new atheist never addresses the real issues. Instead, he goes on and on about what are in fact the meanderings of teleological, anthropological and psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when he's not mangling the pertinent metaphysics.

Straw-man argumentation is the new atheists' forte.

Fine.

Let's move onto the science then, to the facts of abiogenetic research. Let's move on to the hypothesis that must necessarily be true in order for the atheist to be right, though even that wouldn't necessarily prove that God is not.

But, no, wait a minute! Let's not move on to the science . . . not with the likes of Hollie, as the likes of Hollie never do move on to the science.

I've only encountered one atheist on this forum who ever did, and once this authority on the science of abiogenetic research got done with his amateurish prattle. . . . Well, we haven't heard from him on this forum since.

The atheists' "science"?

Anytime you're ready, children, let me know.

Great post.

I do think that faith alone is sufficient and reason is an extra if you want it and being able to argue the topic is not standard duty of all Christians.

I wouldn't necessarily dispute that, but I do believe that Christianity is backed by the facts and by reason.

By the way, in the above you made a very important observation. The new atheist does, essentially, equate science with atheism, doesn't he?

What's more "reasonable" than talking snakes, dead men rising, making animal sacrifice to the gawds, Arks, floods, End of Days, etc.

On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have passed through the filter of the scientific method or are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence. This has proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

It's actually comical to watch you science loathing types assume a lot more than just an absurd, illogical frame of reference. You're forced to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and you then proceed to assume a written text (in your case, one or more versions of bibles) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The Flat Earth'er is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise, men "ascend to heaven", shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flame... and Oh yeah, that talking snake thing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What's more "reasonable" than talking snakes, dead men rising, making animal sacrifice to the gawds, Arks, floods, End of Days, etc.

On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have passed through the filter of the scientific method or are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence. This has proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

It's actually comical to watch you science loathing types assume a lot more than just an absurd, illogical frame of reference. You're forced to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and you then proceed to assume a written text (in your case, one or more versions of bibles) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The Flat Earth'er is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise, men "ascend to heaven", shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flame... and Oh yeah, that talking snake thing.

LOL! and what is your answers? Creation from a "big bang"?? Life fro evolved pond scum? ROFLMAO!

BZZZT Wrong on both counts!

The big bang consisted of matter and energy that already existed, hence it wasn't "created".

Pond scum is a life form.

 

[Hollie]

[me: Oh, sure. Science sits on their self-acclaimed throne, but when so often confronted with the possibility their confounding findings point to a supreme being or intelligence --- all too often they back off and say "that is not our area of study."

Then what good are they? They are a notch or two above other sources trying to entertain us for a time.

Jonathan Swift (17th century English satirist) speaking of the achievements of science and its reflection upon its own laurels. ---- "And he, whose fortunes and dispositions have placed him in a convenient station to enjoy the fruits of this noble art; he that can with Epicurus content his ideas with the films and images that fly-off upon his senses from the superficies of things; such a man truly wise, creams off nature, leaving the sour and the dregs for philosophy and reason to lap up. This is the sublime and refined point of felicity, called, the possession of being well deceived; the serene peaceful state of being a fool among knaves."}

You quoted so much to come back with so little. Science does much more than simply entertain us. It has taken us leaps and bounds beyond what we were only a hundred years ago. Imagine where it will take us in the next thousand.

The quote sufficed. Did you miss or ignore the point on purpose?

If science is want to render an opinion on the evidence for an intelligent designer, then they deal only with mammon. It causes devotees more harm than good if they use it to ignore the Creator.

So doubling our lifespan, finding cures to countless diseases, giving us ways to vastly increase food production and dauntlessly working towards abundant clean energy does more harm than good to society does it?

Do not equate science with atheism, dolt.

E

What's more "reasonable" than talking snakes, dead men rising, making animal sacrifice to the gawds, Arks, floods, End of Days, etc.

On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have passed through the filter of the scientific method or are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence. This has proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

It's actually comical to watch you science loathing types assume a lot more than just an absurd, illogical frame of reference. You're forced to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and you then proceed to assume a written text (in your case, one or more versions of bibles) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The Flat Earth'er is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise, men "ascend to heaven", shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flame... and Oh yeah, that talking snake thing.

LOL! and what is your answers? Creation from a "big bang"?? Life fro evolved pond scum? ROFLMAO!

BZZZT Wrong on both counts!

The big bang consisted of matter and energy that already existed, hence it wasn't "created".

Pond scum is a life form.

Yep. And no requirements for magic or supernaturalism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BZZZT Wrong on both counts!

The big bang consisted of matter and energy that already existed, hence it wasn't "created".

Pond scum is a life form.

When are you going to learn not to talk about things you don't understand? There was no matter, or energy, before the Big Bang because the universe that defines such things did not exist.

 

[Hollie]

It seems you do at least consider a classical religious idea, if not one typically considered in the west. Taking it one step higher, if we are but parts of a greater whole then it really isn't hostile to life at all. A rain drop falling into the ocean loses nothing except being a drop, and gains much by becoming an ocean.

While I recognize some sort of eastern philosophy my thing's actually from the pov of physics. At the atomic level, there's no appreciable separation from one atom to another atom. Where the atoms which make up my feet meet the atoms which make up the ground is neglible. Extended out to the whole of the universe, since even space is made up of something (dark matter et al.) then where the atoms which make up my foot touch the earth, the arth touches the atoms of the atmosphere which touch the atoms of space...Thus we're in a literal, empirical sense, one thing.

The more you study the physical world, the more you see it's not what it appears. More and more the idea of "mass" has become outdated. Before the atom was thought to be comprised of an energy particle and a mass particle but more and more, even the mass is just energy.

There is a sameness to atoms, they're neutrons, protons, and electrons. If that's all there is, then nothing matters. Death isn't sad, the physical laws tell us nothing is destroyed, only converted to another form. Violence doesn't matter. There is no choice, no love, everything is just some chemical reaction and following laws of physics. Nothing is right or wrong.

"The more you study the physical world, the more you see it's not what it appears."

Another "grad'uate" of the Jimmy Swaggert School of the Silly

He is exactly right and if you knew the slightest factoids about QM and had even a smidgeon of honesty you would agree that Malamute was right.

So of course you wont.

I can honestly advise that your appeals to magic and supernaturalism are tragically comic.

My preference for discerning fact from partisan religious superstition is based (as has been repeatedly pointed out) on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. Your preference is based (as you admit here) purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."…1 CORINTHIANS 1:18===Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
…20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;…

It never fails!

When the theists can't come back with reason and logic they quote their bible as it to ward off "evil spirits" like the demons of Science, Evolution and Facts.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Atheism is borne from:

1. Arrogance
2. Selfishness
3. Self Centeredness

The above is just silly. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

the Apostate's Creed.......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What's more "reasonable" than talking snakes, dead men rising, making animal sacrifice to the gawds, Arks, floods, End of Days, etc.

On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have passed through the filter of the scientific method or are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence. This has proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

It's actually comical to watch you science loathing types assume a lot more than just an absurd, illogical frame of reference. You're forced to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and you then proceed to assume a written text (in your case, one or more versions of bibles) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The Flat Earth'er is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise, men "ascend to heaven", shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flame... and Oh yeah, that talking snake thing.

LOL! and what is your answers? Creation from a "big bang"?? Life fro evolved pond scum? ROFLMAO!

BZZZT Wrong on both counts!

The big bang consisted of matter and energy that already existed, hence it wasn't "created".

Pond scum is a life form.

Huh? So now the laws of physics allowing for quantum fluctuations consist of matter and energy?
_________________________________


A man walks into a bar and bellys up.

Moments later, just when the man is about to order, a duck walks into the bar, picks up a chair, slams it over the man's head and quacks.

Moments later, a monkey walks into the bar, grabs the duck and drop kicks him through the glass window and into the street. The duck shacks it off, flies back into the bar through the broken window, grabs the monkey by his tail, and throws him out window.

The man struggles to his feet, grabs the duck and throws him across the room. The duck hits the wall head first and is knocked out cold. The man then staggers to the bar and orders a shot of whiskey.

Flabbergasted, the bartender exclaims, "What the hell was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the man. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke that damn duck shows up."

Minutes later the duck comes to.

"Hey, duck," says the bartender. "What the hell was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the duck. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke, I'm suddenly walking into a bar somewhere in the world behind that man right there. I got better things to do with my time. I figured if I killed the man the nightmare would end."

"So what's the deal with that monkey?" asks the bartender.

"Don't know," says the duck. "That's the first time that lunatic walked into the bar behind me."

Moments later, the monkey walks back into the bar and glares at the duck.

"So what's your story?" the bartender asks.

Says the monkey, "That duck dropped a load on my head as he flew over, landed and walked into this bar.
____________________________________

That one's an original, by the way, made up by yours truly.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is borne from:

1. Arrogance
2. Selfishness
3. Self Centeredness

The above is just silly. Atheism has no practices, customs, beliefs of “ideologies.” There is no real atheist asserted philosophy, all of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the Theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft of substantiation.

the Apostate's Creed.......

The spammers pointless babble.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Atheism is borne from Fear, Selfishness and Arrogance and Total Self Centeredness. "I am the Center of the Universe!"

Atheists are actually afraid of going to Hell but for whatever reason they don't want to adhere to ANY Church doctrine! Catholic, Christian OR Muslim!

But what MANY of them won't tell you is that they listen to "Ascended Masters" that speak to them.

No WAY those "ascended masters" could be Demons right?

 

[Hollie]

What's more "reasonable" than talking snakes, dead men rising, making animal sacrifice to the gawds, Arks, floods, End of Days, etc.

On the other hand, naturalistic explanations have passed through the filter of the scientific method or are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence. This has proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

It's actually comical to watch you science loathing types assume a lot more than just an absurd, illogical frame of reference. You're forced to postulate natural reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"), and you then proceed to assume a written text (in your case, one or more versions of bibles) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else. The Flat Earth'er is further burdened by appealing to a worldview where reality isn't cohesive-- a reality in which worlds are created by thoughts, seas part, dead men rise, men "ascend to heaven", shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flame... and Oh yeah, that talking snake thing.

LOL! and what is your answers? Creation from a "big bang"?? Life fro evolved pond scum? ROFLMAO!

BZZZT Wrong on both counts!

The big bang consisted of matter and energy that already existed, hence it wasn't "created".

Pond scum is a life form.

Huh? So now the laws of physics allowing for quantum fluctuations consist of matter and energy?
_________________________________


A man walks into a bar and bellys up.

Moments later, just when the man is about to order, a duck walks into the bar, picks up a chair, slams it over the man's head and quacks.

Moments later, a monkey walks into the bar, grabs the duck and drop kicks him through the glass window and into the street. The duck shacks it off, flies back into the bar through the broken window, grabs the monkey by his tail, and throws him out window.

The man struggles to his feet, grabs the duck and throws him across the room. The duck hits the wall head first and is knocked out cold. The man then staggers to the bar and orders a shot of whiskey.

Flabbergasted, the bartender exclaims, "What the hell was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the man. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke that damn duck shows up."

Minutes later the duck comes to.

"Hey, duck," says the bartender. "What the hell was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the duck. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke, I'm suddenly walking into a bar somewhere in the world behind that man right there. I got better things to do with my time. I figured if I killed the man the nightmare would end."

"So what's the deal with that monkey?" asks the bartender.

"Don't know," says the duck. "That's the first time that lunatic walked into the bar behind me."

Moments later, the monkey walks back into the bar and glares at the duck.

"So what's your story?" the bartender asks.

Says the monkey, "That duck dropped a load on my head as he flew over, landed and walked into this bar.

Why do you and the other fundies feel a need to spam the thread with your pointless cut and paste?