The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[PostmodernProph]

you YEC'ists

brainless twit......

Why do the so-called "christians" think this is an example of "following the teachings of Jesus"?

did you want me to lie and say Hollie has a mind?......

Try being something other than a clone of Harun Yahya.

try coming up with an actual argument.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is a theory that all life is related to a single organism that existed billions of years ago and that is supported by evidence.

only in your dreams.....

I don't dream about scientific theories. I don't have an agenda about the validity of scientific theories. I do have an agenda when science or its theories are mischaracterized, such as you are doing. Whether you accept the theories and evidence is up to you. I detect a bias that you resist any theories or evidence that go against your religious beliefs. Perhaps you should explore that more if you really seek truth.

/shrugs.....you consider it mischaracterizing......I consider it pointing out that there is ZERO scientific evidence as defined by the scientific method that single celled organisms evolved even into multicelled organisms, let alone into human beings.......if you want me to accept that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies, I will give you no argument......if you want me to accept that science has shown human beings evolved from single celled organisms I consider you an unscientific dreamer......

This is probably pointless, but one more try:

With this post you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with or do not understand science. You prove my point.

oh fuck.....no, you arrogant asshole, I am not unfamiliar with science.....science presents NO fucking evidence to support the claim that humans evolved from single celled organisms.....science cannot even produce evidence that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.......and if you want to continue claiming there is, trot that fucking evidence out and show it......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Do you have anything to suggest that one or more of your polytheistic gawds created DNA. Why not share the evidence you have?

I'm not the one pretending my beliefs are proven by science.....

Well think about it. Talking snakes? 350 year old men? Living in a whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it? Virgin births?

life crawling out of mud puddles struck by lightening.......single celled organisms turning into multicelled organisms........humans and eels having common ancestors......random shit happening randomly........

Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic because of sensationalist reporting in the popular media.

Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

the new scientific method.....if its popular, its science.....

 

[Hollie]

you YEC'ists

brainless twit......

Why do the so-called "christians" think this is an example of "following the teachings of Jesus"?

did you want me to lie and say Hollie has a mind?......

Try being something other than a clone of Harun Yahya.

try coming up with an actual argument.....

The limitation is yours.

The actual arguments for existence fall within the natural realms of reason and rationality. The other view, the hyper-religious view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and wholly applicable-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

What precisely is reasonable or rational about the supernatural? There is really no logical way of reaching the conclusion that “an eternal and uncaused supernatural entity was responsible for the creation of all.” That conclusion itself is a direct contradiction to the position that everything has a cause.

If there was one such uncaused thing, why not many?

If there can be an unlimited thing after all, why does that unlimited thing have to be either one particular gawd or a unionized syndicate of gawds rather than simply the universe itself?

Unfortunately for you YEC'ists, a 6,000 year old earth managed by your version of a supernatural, serial mass murderer is as unreasonable and irrational a claim as can be.

 

[Hollie]

Do you have anything to suggest that one or more of your polytheistic gawds created DNA. Why not share the evidence you have?

I'm not the one pretending my beliefs are proven by science.....

Well think about it. Talking snakes? 350 year old men? Living in a whales belly for 3 days and living to tell about it? Virgin births?

life crawling out of mud puddles struck by lightening.......single celled organisms turning into multicelled organisms........humans and eels having common ancestors......random shit happening randomly........

Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic because of sensationalist reporting in the popular media.

Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.

The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.

Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.

“Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

the new scientific method.....if its popular, its science.....

The new christian fundamentalist...... if I can't explain it, screech out "the gawds did it".

Oh, wait. That's the stereotypical christian fundamentalist.

 

[PratchettFan]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading the tax law on 501c's.

the regulations don't tell you the underlying reasons for not taxing churches.

but thanks for your advice.

The underlying reason could be because people love the Muppets. What matters is what the law actually says. Church property is not taxed if it is non-profit. If a church owns a chain of grocery stores, those stores are treated like any other business.

 

[PratchettFan]

Proof that evolution is a fact: Fossil evidence, sedimentary evidence, DNA, biological studies

except those things don't actually prove it......fossils are evidence that those creatures used to exist......they don't prove that there is a trail of evolution leading from single celled organisms to humans.......as pointed out before, DNA is equally proof of an intelligent designer......biological studies of what, the universe that God created?.......you have what you believe is evidence......I consider the same things to be evidence of what I believe......neither of us have "proof" acceptable to the other.....

An interesting area of evolutionary research involves mitochondria. You probably know they are ubiquitous and of prime importance in the energy transport system of cells. How would the idea that their presence in cells came about long after the origin of life fit in with the notion of a Creator whose work was a unique and one-time event? Did the idea come to Him after the events of Genesis and seemed such a great improvement He decided to do an upgrade?

Read the whole article here.

"Parasitic bacteria were the first cousins of the mitochondria that power cells in animals and plants -- and first acted as energy parasites in those cells before becoming beneficial, according to a new University of Virginia study that used next-generation DNA sequencing technologies to decode the genomes of 18 bacteria that are close relatives of mitochondria.
The origin of mitochondria began about 2 billion years ago and is one of the seminal events in the evolutionary history of life. However, little is known about the circumstances surrounding its origin, and that question is considered an enigma in modern biology.
"We believe this study has the potential to change the way we think about the event that led to mitochondria," said U.Va. biologist Martin Wu, the study's lead author. "We are saying that the current theories -- all claiming that the relationship between the bacteria and the host cell at the very beginning of the symbiosis was mutually beneficial -- are likely wrong.
"Instead, we believe the relationship likely was antagonistic -- that the bacteria were parasitic and only later became beneficial to the host cell by switching the direction of the ATP transport."

why do you believe they were not created at the same time?......is it because secular science tells you it would have take billions of years for it to occur as a result of random shit happening randomly.......

I would say it is because of the age of fossils. If all species were created at the same time ( a massively crowded environment) you would expect to find mastodon fossils in the same strata of rock as triceratops. You don't.

That evolution happens is a fact. The theory is about how it happens.

I think you're going to be hard pressed to find that many fossils of one and two celled organisms.....

Not the issue. You were talking about all species being created at the same time. The evidence does not support that position - quite the opposite. So I would consider it pretty much resolved that species do evolve over time. The mastodon came on the scene long after triceratops left it. The only rational explanation for that is evolution. Unless, of course, one's position is that creation continues and God pops a new species into the mix when the mood takes her.

As to the very beginning of the process, I consider the idea abiogenesis the most likely scenario. I'm fine with you not seeing it that way.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

God is a theory just like the big bang is a theory.

Both assume that something came from nothing.

The simple fact is there is no downside to believing in a god or an afterlife if you're wrong it won't matter once you're dead if you're right then you live on.

It really makes sense to follow Pascal's wager

I suppose that depends upon how that belief is manifested.

That's your choice though isn't it?

Of course. It is always your choice. I was simply questioning whether Pascal's wager always makes sense. If, rather than living your life to the fullest, you spend it in a box, flagellating yourself for potential sins and begging for forgiveness only to have nothing but oblivion at the end, I think you find the downside of that wager.

There is the other side of the wager as well. What if you are right? Then you go to heaven and spend all of eternity in the presence of God. I have meditated on that a good deal and I have come to the conclusion that is a horror story I want no truck with.

 

[PratchettFan]

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

it does not NEED to mention "sponsorship". it says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT. what do you think the distinction is? Religious tests for public office or voting, etc, are also prohibited.

if someone can't avoid praying for eight hours, they shouldn't be in a public school. they should go to a parochial school.

does caselaw prohibit a teacher from having a prayer on her desk?? and how would you feel if that prayer was a muslim prayer? is it then not appealing to you?

I have no problem at all with whatever religion the teacher wishes to express on his desk. The answer to the question is, of course the teacher can do that. What the teacher cannot do is lead the class in a prayer. Whether or not a student, or the teacher for that matter, can go eight hours without a prayer is - to be frank - none of your business. So long as they do not interrupt the class, that is entirely their business. If the school principle wants to go out into the quad, lay down a prayer rug and bow toward Mecca, that is her business.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism"

This is amusing and ignorant given the fact that most theists often violate the tenets of their own faith, and as a consequence of their arrogance seek to compel others to practice that faith.

 

[jillian]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading the tax law on 501c's.

the regulations don't tell you the underlying reasons for not taxing churches.

but thanks for your advice.

The underlying reason could be because people love the Muppets. What matters is what the law actually says. Church property is not taxed if it is non-profit. If a church owns a chain of grocery stores, those stores are treated like any other business.

Again the non taxation is about non-intervention in religious institutions. 501(c) is only one aspect of law. There is also constitutional caselaw

 

[PratchettFan]

"The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism"

This is amusing and ignorant given the fact that most theists often violate the tenets of their own faith, and as a consequence of their arrogance seek to compel others to practice that faith.

Agreed. Can we agree that hypocrisy and arrogance is a human attribute having nothing at all to do with whatever one believes?

 

[jillian]

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

it does not NEED to mention "sponsorship". it says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT. what do you think the distinction is? Religious tests for public office or voting, etc, are also prohibited.

if someone can't avoid praying for eight hours, they shouldn't be in a public school. they should go to a parochial school.

does caselaw prohibit a teacher from having a prayer on her desk?? and how would you feel if that prayer was a muslim prayer? is it then not appealing to you?

I have no problem at all with whatever religion the teacher wishes to express on his desk. The answer to the question is, of course the teacher can do that. What the teacher cannot do is lead the class in a prayer. Whether or not a student, or the teacher for that matter, can go eight hours without a prayer is - to be frank - none of your business. So long as they do not interrupt the class, that is entirely their business. If the school principle wants to go out into the quad, lay down a prayer rug and bow toward Mecca, that is her business.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal reflection and personal prayer. I have no problem with symbols like Christmas trees if they are displayed in conjunction with other quasi religious symbols. I have a great problem with symbols that make students who do not share the beliefs of the majority being made to feel like outsiders while in a government-funded facility. And ultimately that is what the meaning and purpose of the First is, at least in part.

 

[PratchettFan]

oh.. and PratchettFan, no... it is tax free because the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why, in theory, even the real estate holdings of the church which are profit driven are tax exempt.

if it were that it was non-profit, the catholic church wouldn't be exempt from tax in NYC, being the largest holder of real property in the city. (or was... that might have changed some).

Perhaps you should spend a little time reading the tax law on 501c's.

the regulations don't tell you the underlying reasons for not taxing churches.

but thanks for your advice.

The underlying reason could be because people love the Muppets. What matters is what the law actually says. Church property is not taxed if it is non-profit. If a church owns a chain of grocery stores, those stores are treated like any other business.

Again the non taxation is about non-intervention in religious institutions. 501(c) is only one aspect of law. There is also constitutional caselaw

If that were the case, then only religious institutions would qualify for 501c status. In fact, the vast majority of such organizations aren't religious. The tax status of a church is based upon it being non-profit, not religious. If it is not a non-profit then it will be taxed no matter what it preaches. The salaries of ministers are taxed like any other salary. Profit centers are taxed like any other profit center.

As to constitutional case law, the First Amendment protects the free expression of religion and speech. Of course there is case law. But it derives from the Constitution, not some underlying reason you might think is behind it all.

 

[PratchettFan]

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

it does not NEED to mention "sponsorship". it says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT. what do you think the distinction is? Religious tests for public office or voting, etc, are also prohibited.

if someone can't avoid praying for eight hours, they shouldn't be in a public school. they should go to a parochial school.

does caselaw prohibit a teacher from having a prayer on her desk?? and how would you feel if that prayer was a muslim prayer? is it then not appealing to you?

I have no problem at all with whatever religion the teacher wishes to express on his desk. The answer to the question is, of course the teacher can do that. What the teacher cannot do is lead the class in a prayer. Whether or not a student, or the teacher for that matter, can go eight hours without a prayer is - to be frank - none of your business. So long as they do not interrupt the class, that is entirely their business. If the school principle wants to go out into the quad, lay down a prayer rug and bow toward Mecca, that is her business.

I have no problem with people engaging in personal reflection and personal prayer. I have no problem with symbols like Christmas trees if they are displayed in conjunction with other quasi religious symbols. I have a great problem with symbols that make students who do not share the beliefs of the majority being made to feel like outsiders while in a government-funded facility. And ultimately that is what the meaning and purpose of the First is, at least in part.

If the sight of a religious symbol makes you flee from a building, then I think the problem is with you - not the symbol. I do not cringe at the sight of a Star of David, a cross or a crescent moon. They are just shapes. Now, if you expect me to bow my head and join you in a prayer, we are in different territory.

I would offer that if one is in the minority - and I certainly am - then one should think very hard about supporting the suppression of religious expression. If we can do it to them, then they can do it to us. And there are a lot more of them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

God is a theory just like the big bang is a theory.

Both assume that something came from nothing.

The simple fact is there is no downside to believing in a god or an afterlife if you're wrong it won't matter once you're dead if you're right then you live on.

It really makes sense to follow Pascal's wager

I suppose that depends upon how that belief is manifested.

That's your choice though isn't it?

Of course. It is always your choice. I was simply questioning whether Pascal's wager always makes sense. If, rather than living your life to the fullest, you spend it in a box, flagellating yourself for potential sins and begging for forgiveness only to have nothing but oblivion at the end, I think you find the downside of that wager.

There is the other side of the wager as well. What if you are right? Then you go to heaven and spend all of eternity in the presence of God. I have meditated on that a good deal and I have come to the conclusion that is a horror story I want no truck with.

Why do you assume the choice to believe in a god involves a lifetime of self flagellation?

I'm not a religious man but I cannot if I am being intellectually honest completely discount the possibility of a supreme being.

IMO the bible is nothing but a story that has nothing to do with any deity that may exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

God is a theory just like the big bang is a theory.

Both assume that something came from nothing.

The simple fact is there is no downside to believing in a god or an afterlife if you're wrong it won't matter once you're dead if you're right then you live on.

It really makes sense to follow Pascal's wager

I suppose that depends upon how that belief is manifested.

That's your choice though isn't it?

Of course. It is always your choice. I was simply questioning whether Pascal's wager always makes sense. If, rather than living your life to the fullest, you spend it in a box, flagellating yourself for potential sins and begging for forgiveness only to have nothing but oblivion at the end, I think you find the downside of that wager.

There is the other side of the wager as well. What if you are right? Then you go to heaven and spend all of eternity in the presence of God. I have meditated on that a good deal and I have come to the conclusion that is a horror story I want no truck with.

Why do you assume the choice to believe in a god involves a lifetime of self flagellation?

I'm not a religious man but I cannot if I am being intellectually honest completely discount the possibility of a supreme being.

IMO the bible is nothing but a story that has nothing to do with any deity that may exist.

I'm not assuming that, just offering a scenario in which the wager does indeed have a down side. As I indicated, the biggest downside is you might win the wager.

I am a religious man. Just not a Christian.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the supreme court cases say otherwise. and if you're using government money, no, you don't get to insert it into our schools without equal time to other religions.

that said, with the wackadoodle on the court who believes satan is real, who knows how long sanity will remain in that particular area of law.

Supreme Court cases do not say otherwise. Please provide me with just one citation from the USSC which says religion is not allowed in public schools or public buildings. I'll wait.

The First Amendment prohibits state sponsorship of religion.

So you can pray in school but you can't have the lords prayer hanging on the wall in a public building. That's why all over the country they are making you guys take them down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/u...chool-prayer-lawsuit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You should have seen the angry Christians at the town hall meeting. They would have burned her at the stake if they could have.

A federal judge ruled this month that the prayer’s presence at Cranston High School West was unconstitutional, concluding that it violated the principle of government neutrality in religion.

In the weeks since, residents have crowded school board meetings to demand an appeal, Jessica has received online threats and the police have escorted her at school, and Cranston, a dense city of 80,000 just south of Providence, has throbbed with raw emotion.

State Representative Peter G. Palumbo, a Democrat from Cranston, called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a popular talk radio show. Three separate florists refused to deliver her roses sent from a national atheist group. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has filed a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

“I was amazed,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 from support and scholarship funds. “We haven’t seen a case like this in a long time, with this level of revilement and ostracism and stigmatizing.”

^^^^

that

The constitution does not mention sponsorship.

"Congress shall pass no laws establishing....or prohibiting the free exercise..."

So tell me does passing a law stating that a teacher can't have a prayer in a frame on her desk violate the first amendment?

it does not NEED to mention "sponsorship". it says that there shall be no ESTABLISHMENT. what do you think the distinction is? Religious tests for public office or voting, etc, are also prohibited.

if someone can't avoid praying for eight hours, they shouldn't be in a public school. they should go to a parochial school.

does caselaw prohibit a teacher from having a prayer on her desk?? and how would you feel if that prayer was a muslim prayer? is it then not appealing to you?

I asked a hypothetical question. At what point does the prohibition against personal expressions of faith violate the first amendment?

And why would you assume I would have a problem with an Islamic prayer.

You see I learned a long time ago that another person's beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with me. Why haven't you realized that yet?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Unfortunately for you YEC'ists

once again, she renders her entire post irrelevant......

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It is a theory that all life is related to a single organism that existed billions of years ago and that is supported by evidence.

only in your dreams.....

I don't dream about scientific theories. I don't have an agenda about the validity of scientific theories. I do have an agenda when science or its theories are mischaracterized, such as you are doing. Whether you accept the theories and evidence is up to you. I detect a bias that you resist any theories or evidence that go against your religious beliefs. Perhaps you should explore that more if you really seek truth.

/shrugs.....you consider it mischaracterizing......I consider it pointing out that there is ZERO scientific evidence as defined by the scientific method that single celled organisms evolved even into multicelled organisms, let alone into human beings.......if you want me to accept that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies, I will give you no argument......if you want me to accept that science has shown human beings evolved from single celled organisms I consider you an unscientific dreamer......

This is probably pointless, but one more try:

With this post you demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with or do not understand science. You prove my point.

oh fuck.....no, you arrogant asshole, I am not unfamiliar with science.....science presents NO fucking evidence to support the claim that humans evolved from single celled organisms.....science cannot even produce evidence that single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms.......and if you want to continue claiming there is, trot that fucking evidence out and show it......

Yep. Pointless. You want to see hard, definitive, conclusive, simple-to-understand, easily visible, undeniable evidence that shows you a cell forming into a human being over billions of years? It doesn't exist. That does not mean there is no evidence. There is DNA evidence, chemical evidence, morphological evidence, so much evidence that it will take you months to read through it all in one sitting. But You can start here: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Some of the evidence that I think is most compelling has to do with ERVs, where an organism infected by a retrovirus has their DNA altered by that virus, which is then passed down to their offspring. For example: we share the same sequence of a retrovirus DNA in the same code and in the same place on our DNA with chimpanzees. Another piece of compelling evidence has to do with pseudogenes.

This is a summary about that from wikipiedia (which I am using as a source for its brevity and ease of comprehension about the subject not to show its credibility. For that you need to read other sources discussing this particular field of study):

"Pseudogenes, also known as noncoding DNA, are extra DNA in a genome that do not get transcribed into RNA to synthesize proteins. Some of this noncoding DNA has known functions, but much of it has no known function and is called "Junk DNA". This is an example of a vestige since replicating these genes uses energy, making it a waste in many cases. A pseudogene can be produced when a coding gene accumulates mutations that prevent it from being transcribed, making it non-functional. But since it is not transcribed, it may disappear without affecting fitness, unless it has provided some beneficial function as non-coding DNA. Non-functional pseudogenes may be passed on to later species, thereby labeling the later species as descended from the earlier species."

I'm sure you'll actually take the time to learn about the best explanation modern science has formed regarding the origin of You so that you'll have both a biblical explanation and a scientific one from which to be informed instead of arrogantly assuming you already know what you need to know. Right?