why not just sit on your butt and pray?

[HUGGY]

YAWN; more anti-religious babble weakly disguised as intelligent debate. screaming at the top of your lungs at every instance of a majority's desires to practice their fait; or express it, EVEN IN apublic setting. only reveals your own intolerance

it is freedom of religion; not freedom from religion

I noticed you were unable to actually address a single point.

Where are you prevented from expressing your religious belief in public?

yawn. you arent making any points. you have one case; an it is irrelevant to the larger issue of animosity toward religion by people like you

Moral people should have animosity towards fraud.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Miller-Urey for an example.


What tests have been done to demonstrate your particular gods? Remember, Miller-Urey was subject to peer review so make sure your tests for the gods can meet that same standard.

since Miller Urey didn't produce life, doesn't that mean your theory has, at least once, failed in the experiment?

The experiment produced almost two dozen amino acids.

sweet....now we know where amino acids come from.....now, back to experiments that produced life....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Every Atheist is sure that there is no God until they truly need Him.

every atheist believes proof must be provided until their own beliefs are questioned....

 

[HUGGY]

Every Atheist is sure that there is no God until they truly need Him.

every atheist believes proof must be provided until their own beliefs are questioned....

Both statements are childlike. Rejecting one's own atheism in fact cancels one's right to any claim of being an atheist. It is impossible for an atheist to reach out to any god by definition.

 

[Hollie]

since Miller Urey didn't produce life, doesn't that mean your theory has, at least once, failed in the experiment?

The experiment produced almost two dozen amino acids.

sweet....now we know where amino acids come from.....now, back to experiments that produced life....

Pretty cool, huh? No appeals to magic are required.

It's obvious you have slithered away from demonstrations of your gods.

I'm simply holding you to the same standard you hold science too. Obviously, you believe your gods get a special exemption. They don't.

So, back to you needing to provide peer reviewed experimentation for your gods.

 

[Hollie]

Well ... as I've proven in another thread Christians founded this nation and Christian books, as well as the Bible, were used in America's public schools. As a result, America climbed to greatness. Now, as all Christian material is removed from schools, America is faltering on the brink of failure. 2 + 2 = 4

Thank the gods (I'd list them alphabetically but that would take too long), that the founding fathers understood the dangers of theocratic totalitarianism.

And yet atheists/humanists are routinely trying to legislate their version of "morality" upon the rest of society. You don't want to take it but you don't mind dishing it out.

False, silly and completely unsupported.

Firstly, and if you could be honest, (not that I’m accusing you of being honest), in those instances where you allege “atheists/humanists are routinely trying to legislate their version of "morality" upon the rest of society”, what you’re referring to are instances where Christian fundies have tried to impose their religion where it is unconstitutional to do so – religious indoctrination in public schools, for example.

What you find galling is that your religion is not allowed special exemptions or dispensations. You want an allowance to flaunt the law. You’re incensed that efforts by fundamentalists to illegally introduce your religious doctrines into public schools have met an unambiguous refusal by the courts.

There’s a term for those who hold themselves and their ideology in a status of privileged inviolability in all manner of social/political interaction, public discourse and in print. The term is fascism and the elements noted contribute to that dynamic. Those very elements: holding yourself as superior and deserving of greater rights for no other reason than a particular politico-religious ideology is by definition,fascism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The experiment produced almost two dozen amino acids.

sweet....now we know where amino acids come from.....now, back to experiments that produced life....

I'm simply holding you to the same standard you hold science too.

as I pointed out, you do that because you confuse science with religion.....I noticed that because you don't hold science to ANY standards.....

 

[Hollie]

sweet....now we know where amino acids come from.....now, back to experiments that produced life....

I'm simply holding you to the same standard you hold science too.

as I pointed out, you do that because you confuse science with religion.....I noticed that because you don't hold science to ANY standards.....

Science has the standard of the scientific method, peer review, etc.

It's remarkable you didn't know that.

It was anticipated that you would ignore and sidestep the requirement that your gods meet the same standards that science is held to. It's stereotypical for extremists to insist that their claims are above questioning and that their dogma stands as absolute.

Oh, sorry. My carma just ran over your dogma.

 

[Steven_R]

/shrugs......does that change the fact that I have again proved you wrong?.....it isn't the "fundies" who use the courts to impose their beliefs on others......

You actually proved the goals of Christian fundies - to impose their dogma on the public school system.

The Dover case (and it is just one of many), amply proved that ID is nothing but a theological attempt to put christianity into the public schools. The goals of the Disco'tute and others like them are to reform society and government into a more theocratic arrangement, intolerant of non-Christians or Christians who do not agree with them, and imposing their concept of "morality" upon the population.



NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.

How does mentioning other theories exist impose dogma?

Because it was a school board interjecting non-science concepts into a science classroom. It sounds reasonable at first until you start looking at the people behind ID. The Discovery Institute is a bunch of super-Christian whackjobs that think science, evolution in particular, is behind all the evils in society and we need to get back to being a good and just and godly people. That's not exactly a science position.

That's before we get into their own internal documents like the Wedge Strategy or how they have publically stated that they have a conclusion (e.g. Goddidit) but no evidence to back it up, or school board members defending their decisions by publically calling ID creationism and asking when someone was going to stand up for Christ and then lying to the Court about the funding for the textbooks.

And we still haven't even touched the value of teaching children in a science class something the scientific community disregards outright.

 

[Steven_R]

/shrugs......does that change the fact that I have again proved you wrong?.....it isn't the "fundies" who use the courts to impose their beliefs on others......

You actually proved the goals of Christian fundies - to impose their dogma on the public school system.

and yet, it was you that forced your dogma on the public school system by court action, when the public school system made a choice, out of the entire curriculum, to spend less than a minute reading a statement which mentioned some had a different opinion than you.....

The trial wouldn't have been necessary if the creationists hadn't tried to jam a rebranded creationism into a classroom.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm simply holding you to the same standard you hold science too.

as I pointed out, you do that because you confuse science with religion.....I noticed that because you don't hold science to ANY standards.....

Science has the standard of the scientific method

I know....that's the one you refuse to use....

 

[PostmodernProph]

You actually proved the goals of Christian fundies - to impose their dogma on the public school system.

and yet, it was you that forced your dogma on the public school system by court action, when the public school system made a choice, out of the entire curriculum, to spend less than a minute reading a statement which mentioned some had a different opinion than you.....

The trial wouldn't have been necessary if the creationists hadn't tried to jam a rebranded creationism into a classroom.

why do you all feel the need to dodge the fact that, as I stated, it is the atheists, not the "religious fundies" that use the courts to force their opinions on every one else.....it is unequivocal.....atheists could not tolerate the reading of one simple sentence that reported some people had differing opinions.......

 

[Hollie]

as I pointed out, you do that because you confuse science with religion.....I noticed that because you don't hold science to ANY standards.....

Science has the standard of the scientific method

I know....that's the one you refuse to use....

My argument from the science perspective derives from the scientific method.

Your argument from the perspective of magic and supernaturalism derives from a book of tales and fables suggesting a 6,000 year old earth.

BTW, the earth is more than 6,000 years old.

 

[Hollie]

and yet, it was you that forced your dogma on the public school system by court action, when the public school system made a choice, out of the entire curriculum, to spend less than a minute reading a statement which mentioned some had a different opinion than you.....

The trial wouldn't have been necessary if the creationists hadn't tried to jam a rebranded creationism into a classroom.

why do you all feel the need to dodge the fact that, as I stated, it is the atheists, not the "religious fundies" that use the courts to force their opinions on every one else.....it is unequivocal.....atheists could not tolerate the reading of one simple sentence that reported some people had differing opinions.......

Your description is wrong. You can't accept it because your fundamentalist, dogmatic views don't allow you a perspective of reason and rationality.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Science has the standard of the scientific method

I know....that's the one you refuse to use....

My argument from the science perspective derives from the scientific method.

why do you reject the requirement of testability from the scientific method and replace it with plausibility?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

The trial wouldn't have been necessary if the creationists hadn't tried to jam a rebranded creationism into a classroom.

why do you all feel the need to dodge the fact that, as I stated, it is the atheists, not the "religious fundies" that use the courts to force their opinions on every one else.....it is unequivocal.....atheists could not tolerate the reading of one simple sentence that reported some people had differing opinions.......

Your description is wrong. You can't accept it because your fundamentalist, dogmatic views don't allow you a perspective of reason and rationality.

my description?.....I pasted it from your link.....

 

[HUGGY]

The godsquad wastes time lashing out or covering up. Much of this thread is off topic because religious types lose driving them to make the argument about tangent or seemingly tangent side issues.

Reading the last several pages one wouldn't know this thread is titled...

why not just sit on your butt and pray?

Why not? Because praying is nonsense. It is part of the FRAUD of "faith". Those that claim faith is the answer can blame even those that pray that "their faith was not strong enough".

It is a familiar scam.

"Hello I represent the Universal Contest and you have won the grand prize but you must pay a small fee to cover handling and processing to claim your prize."

First the victim is told that they are special and there is a god that takes a special interest in them. All the victim needs to do is give up on reason and agree that this "god" hears their prayers and depending on the sincerity of faith in that concept will be rewarded by an answer to said prayers.

No sane person can ever believe convincingly in this concept so by self incrimination never truly expects to claim the grand prize.

"Maybe my faith wasn't pure enough" Duh...Ya think?

It takes a great scam to convince the victim that it is their fault they didn't recieve the grand prize.

 

[Politico]

Prayers are more effective when hand-delivered to The White House along with a check.

Agreed. No prayer that didn't include money ever helped me.

 

[Hollie]

I know....that's the one you refuse to use....

My argument from the science perspective derives from the scientific method.

why do you reject the requirement of testability from the scientific method and replace it with plausibility?.....

Still dodging the tough questions, I see.

 

[Hollie]

why do you all feel the need to dodge the fact that, as I stated, it is the atheists, not the "religious fundies" that use the courts to force their opinions on every one else.....it is unequivocal.....atheists could not tolerate the reading of one simple sentence that reported some people had differing opinions.......

Your description is wrong. You can't accept it because your fundamentalist, dogmatic views don't allow you a perspective of reason and rationality.

my description?.....I pasted it from your link.....

You're mistaken.