"I can't trust the aguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist"

[JakeStarkey]

Because i care about your immortal soul

Horty, you would not give a dang if I got hit by a bus tomorrow. You don't care about me in any way, form or fashion. AND THAT'S OK. I don't expect you to. You don't know me and this is an online forum. Caring about my immortal soul appears to be a very passive, very abstract, very impersonal, noncommittal future orientated (non)action.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that you want to make sure that I have some type of punishment or to be held accountable for whatever I may have done in my past or am currently doing. As if I am one step away from a Charles Manson episode with nothing to keep me in check.

Atheists have relationships that we are responsible to and for. Just like you.

Your ignorance manifest itself in your arrogance. How can you possibly state at how he feels? I suspect you just don't want some one, for your personal reasons, to care for your immortal soul.

Arrogance would have been assuming and expecting that he gave a damn.

Caring for someones immortal soul is called the least that one can do and requires no effort including the caring. Giving a damn in the here and now requires effort. It's unfortunate that you find this truth disagreeable.

Too bad your arrogance demonstrates your ignorance about what someone else believes. But such is your right.

So, what I hear you saying is this is a little too deep for you. Had I known that you were this shallow then I would not have wasted my time.

Sorry that you outed yourself but that is your water to carry. That you believe you know what another person thinks or believes is utter arrogant ignorance. You don't like being called on it. Tough.

 

[Steven_R]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

I would actually call us anti-Abrahaman if I had to apply a label. I accept the possibility of some super natural force, although there is no proof of one. But I absolutely reject the god of the Bible and Koran. Even if we strip away the contradictions, absurdities, and outright illogical stories of the books, that god is no god worth worshiping. Yahweh is a cruel and despotic god on his own that tends to pick the basest of men to be his prophets (there are exceptions of course, like Jesus), but that god delights in tormenting his creations.

Atheism isn't just saying that there isn't a god, but exploring the idea of if there is a god, what kind of a god is he/she/it.

 

[Disir]

Horty, you would not give a dang if I got hit by a bus tomorrow. You don't care about me in any way, form or fashion. AND THAT'S OK. I don't expect you to. You don't know me and this is an online forum. Caring about my immortal soul appears to be a very passive, very abstract, very impersonal, noncommittal future orientated (non)action.

My interpretation of what you are saying is that you want to make sure that I have some type of punishment or to be held accountable for whatever I may have done in my past or am currently doing. As if I am one step away from a Charles Manson episode with nothing to keep me in check.

Atheists have relationships that we are responsible to and for. Just like you.

Your ignorance manifest itself in your arrogance. How can you possibly state at how he feels? I suspect you just don't want some one, for your personal reasons, to care for your immortal soul.

Arrogance would have been assuming and expecting that he gave a damn.

Caring for someones immortal soul is called the least that one can do and requires no effort including the caring. Giving a damn in the here and now requires effort. It's unfortunate that you find this truth disagreeable.

Too bad your arrogance demonstrates your ignorance about what someone else believes. But such is your right.

So, what I hear you saying is this is a little too deep for you. Had I known that you were this shallow then I would not have wasted my time.

Sorry that you outed yourself but that is your water to carry. That you believe you know what another person thinks or believes is utter arrogant ignorance. You don't like being called on it. Tough.

Caring for someones immortal soul is called the least that one can do and requires no effort including the caring. Giving a damn in the here and now requires effort.

Are you telling me that this is not true?
Are you telling me that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow that you would give a damn?

 

[jillian]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

 

[jillian]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

 

[Steven_R]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

There's different kinds of proselytizing though. Dawkins saying "look, there's simply no proof that Jehovah even exists and if he did, have you read the Bible? Is that maniac the god you want to worship" isn't quite the same thing as a guy on a streetcorner accosting passersby or knocking on doors. One has to make an effort to find Dawkins, even if that means flipping on the tube.

 

[jillian]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

There's different kinds of proselytizing though. Dawkins saying "look, there's simply no proof that Jehovah even exists and if he did, have you read the Bible? Is that maniac the god you want to worship" isn't quite the same thing as a guy on a streetcorner accosting passersby or knocking on doors. One has to make an effort to find Dawkins, even if that means flipping on the tube.

I agree with that. perhaps I should have said aggressive atheists, like aggressive religious types don't appeal to me.

 

[Steven_R]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

There's different kinds of proselytizing though. Dawkins saying "look, there's simply no proof that Jehovah even exists and if he did, have you read the Bible? Is that maniac the god you want to worship" isn't quite the same thing as a guy on a streetcorner accosting passersby or knocking on doors. One has to make an effort to find Dawkins, even if that means flipping on the tube.

I agree with that. perhaps I should have said aggressive atheists, like aggressive religious types don't appeal to me.

Agreed. If aksed about my religious views, I'll tell someone and maybe even engage in a debate, but I don't go out of my way to disabuse anyone of his or her notions of God.

 

[jillian]

What is an anti-godist? Apart from the butchering of English.

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

There's different kinds of proselytizing though. Dawkins saying "look, there's simply no proof that Jehovah even exists and if he did, have you read the Bible? Is that maniac the god you want to worship" isn't quite the same thing as a guy on a streetcorner accosting passersby or knocking on doors. One has to make an effort to find Dawkins, even if that means flipping on the tube.

I agree with that. perhaps I should have said aggressive atheists, like aggressive religious types don't appeal to me.

Agreed. If aksed about my religious views, I'll tell someone and maybe even engage in a debate, but I don't go out of my way to disabuse anyone of his or her notions of God.

I love discussions about religion and faith. they interest me. howvever I am not interested in anyone trying to sway my faith in one way or another. I kind of believe what I believe as it's evolved over my lifetime.

so cheers to everyone believing what they want.

now if everyone would leave each other to those beliefs or non-beliefs, the word would be great.

 

[the_human_being]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

So??? Like I stated, I use both in my own vocation. Many of us do.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

So??? Like I stated, I use both in my own vocation. Many of us do.

fraud alert!

 

[jillian]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

So??? Like I stated, I use both in my own vocation. Many of us do.

If that were true you wouldn't be a science denier.

 

[dblack]

Dawkins and ilk. The people intent on "curing" people of their religious delusions.

atheists aren't anti-G-d. they are simply non-believers. dawkins proselytizes the idea same as some religious types do.

I don't like when anyone proselytizes.

There's different kinds of proselytizing though. Dawkins saying "look, there's simply no proof that Jehovah even exists and if he did, have you read the Bible? Is that maniac the god you want to worship" isn't quite the same thing as a guy on a streetcorner accosting passersby or knocking on doors. One has to make an effort to find Dawkins, even if that means flipping on the tube.

I agree with that. perhaps I should have said aggressive atheists, like aggressive religious types don't appeal to me.

Agreed. If aksed about my religious views, I'll tell someone and maybe even engage in a debate, but I don't go out of my way to disabuse anyone of his or her notions of God.

I love discussions about religion and faith. they interest me. howvever I am not interested in anyone trying to sway my faith in one way or another. I kind of believe what I believe as it's evolved over my lifetime.

so cheers to everyone believing what they want.

now if everyone would leave each other to those beliefs or non-beliefs, the word would be great.

It's a fascinating topic. Too bad it's flame-bait for most.

 

[the_human_being]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

So??? Like I stated, I use both in my own vocation. Many of us do.

If that were true you wouldn't be a science denier.

I don't deny science. I deny speculation.

 

[the_human_being]

As opposed to the probability of it ever happening. Not even in 100 million years. I'm an engineer and as such I believe mathematics and science go hand-in-hand. The probability of a single cell evolving even into two cells is totally improbable mathematically.

Want to speak to probabilities?
An appeal to authority that makes you out to be an even bigger douche than thought possible?

A group at the University of Arizona has published a study of of one group the these amazing organisms, the volvocine green algae. What's amazing about this group of algae is that you can find a range of multicellular sophistication in closely relate algae species. There are species that form simple sets of four identical cells stuck together, other that form balls of 32-64 not quite identical cells with some specialized functions, up to full-blown multicellular organisms with 50,000 highly specialized cells, including reproductive germ cells. The evolution of multicellularity is not an irrecoverable event from an unimaginably distant past; it is something we can observe, manipulate, and test in the lab today.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
By Michael White | February 20th 2009 03:15 PM
​

"I'm an engineer.." of two centuries ago?

Why not simply observe the growth of a child? They say the algae appeared millions of years ago. Appeared from where?

science like math, exists whether you believe in it or not.... to paraphrase Neil Degrasse Tyson.

So??? Like I stated, I use both in my own vocation. Many of us do.

fraud alert!

Yes you are but no need for the warning, we already knew you were.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Atheism isn't just saying that there isn't a god, but exploring the idea of if there is a god, what kind of a god is he/she/it."No, it is not.

 

[Agit8r]

Interesting. Watch the dif between the postings of the atheists and the anti-Godists.

View attachment 52843

If I believed the Bible, how can I believe my thinking to be true? Perhaps it is a trick of the Devil, or the weakness of my broken flesh nature. Nor could I trust my better instincts or strive to be better through practice, for scripture tells me "There is none righteous, no, not one"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting. Watch the dif between the postings of the atheists and the anti-Godists.

View attachment 52843

If I believed the Bible, how can I believe my thinking to be true? Perhaps it is a trick of the Devil, or the weakness of my broken flesh nature. Nor could I trust my better instincts or strive to be better through practice, for scripture tells me "There is none righteous, no, not one"

So very, very weak. The discussion is not about the Bible, it is about the ability to prove or disprove one's belief in God or not.

 

[Agit8r]

Interesting. Watch the dif between the postings of the atheists and the anti-Godists.

View attachment 52843

If I believed the Bible, how can I believe my thinking to be true? Perhaps it is a trick of the Devil, or the weakness of my broken flesh nature. Nor could I trust my better instincts or strive to be better through practice, for scripture tells me "There is none righteous, no, not one"

So very, very weak. The discussion is not about the Bible, it is about the ability to prove or disprove one's belief in God or not.

Ohhhhh. Yeah, I don't have any such beliefs to prove. Meh.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting. Watch the dif between the postings of the atheists and the anti-Godists.

View attachment 52843

If I believed the Bible, how can I believe my thinking to be true? Perhaps it is a trick of the Devil, or the weakness of my broken flesh nature. Nor could I trust my better instincts or strive to be better through practice, for scripture tells me "There is none righteous, no, not one"

So very, very weak. The discussion is not about the Bible, it is about the ability to prove or disprove one's belief in God or not.

Ohhhhh. Yeah, I don't have any such beliefs to prove. Meh.