Feed on Posts or Comments 01 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Politics &Science Thomas on 13 Dec 2011 12:47 am

Why religious people refuse to believe in evolution

A very valid rant on why Creationists are wrong:

It also helps explain why religion is invalid and should be ridiculed by every intelligent human being.

122 Responses to “Why religious people refuse to believe in evolution”

  1. on 13 Dec 2011 at 1:16 am 1.40 year Atheist said …

    The Mathematics of Evolution
    [ Rock ]Z = [ Intellect ]

    Solve for Z.

    Show your work.

    Hint: Remember that Z = f(n), where n = Deep Time.

  2. on 13 Dec 2011 at 1:53 am 2.Anonymous said …

    40ya is a person who has never studied evolution or looked at its mountains of evidence

  3. on 13 Dec 2011 at 3:26 am 3.Anonymous said …

    “40ya is a person who has never studied” – fixed it for you.

  4. on 13 Dec 2011 at 10:38 am 4.Anonymous said …

    Stupidity of religion

    http://imgur.com/kxtVd

  5. on 13 Dec 2011 at 8:27 pm 5.Xenon said …

    40 YA

    That is brilliant. I need to use that.

  6. on 13 Dec 2011 at 8:35 pm 6.Lou (DFW) said …

    5.Xenon said …

    “40 YA

    That is brilliant. I need to use that.”

    As he said, show your work. We’re waiting, but as usual we don’t expect a reply.

  7. on 13 Dec 2011 at 10:50 pm 7.Anonymous said …

    #5, it’s great that you think that’s brilliant, because you then won’t mind explaining what you think it means particularly with respect to any actual current theory? Please go ahead, we’d all be interested in your analysis.

    From the tone of your post, it seems that you are scornful which makes it even more important that you quantify what it is that you object to. Can’t have you attacking a strawman, can we?

    Naturally, if you are going to object to something, it’s incumbent upon you to provide your best alternative. Unless of course your intent is simply a display of intellectual dishonesty by means of a diversion?

    Fortunately, as Horatiio, you’ve previously promised to provide evidence for the existence of your god, but failed to do so. Hence this would be a wonderful opportunity for you to discharge that debt and attempt to regain some credibility in the eyes of this community.

    Do go ahead and post your explanations, we’ll wait for you.

  8. on 14 Dec 2011 at 1:22 am 8.Martin said …

    NOW, you are on the right track!

    Fighting evolution itself, you are up against paleontology and all the other biological sciences, and it is unlikely you can make a good argument in that sense.

    But the argument in this post is possibly quite strong, and I can offer you an interesting fleshing out of it.

    Consider that it is irrational to hold these two beliefs at once:

    1. That something was created by blind impersonal forces
    2. And that it accurately gives information about something beyond itself

    If blind and impersonal forces create the letters “JOHN F KENNEDY IS 5’6″ TALL AND WEIGHS 160 LBS” in the rocks, then we can safely assume that this is not accurate information. If, however, we can take it to give us accurate information about Kennedy, then we can also assume that the letters were not placed there by blind and impersonal forces of nature.

    Consider the woman who believes Jesus appeared in her toast. She believes that A) God put the picture there, and B) that the picture accurately represents Jesus. She is OK. (Although, obviously, her belief that God would do such a thing is another story). If she believed that the picture of Jesus was made by mold, and also that the picture was an accurate representation, then we would think that she is quite out of her gourd.

    Now consider the materialist. He believes two things: A) human intellect developed from blind and impersonal natural forces, and B)the human intellect can give us accurate information about things beyond itself, such as knowledge about the world beyond himself.

  9. on 14 Dec 2011 at 1:38 am 9.Anonymous said …

    Martin, do you consider that the entire universe was created by a supernatural being for the purpose to house the earth, the earth being populated by this being for the purpose of worshiping himself, these beings created from dirt and a rib, and that this being sacrificed himself to himself to atone for his own mistakes so that he wouldn’t have to send the beings he created to eternal torment on account of a conversation with a talking snake, to be a rational argument?

  10. on 14 Dec 2011 at 2:01 am 10.MrQ said …

    40YA

    The Mathematics of Evolution
    [ Rock ]Z = [ Intellect ]

    Don’t recognize that.

    40YA: Consider that the planet Earth is billions of years old. When do you suppose humans came about by divine force/intervention? A billion years ago? 6000 years ago? What does your bible say about that?
    Horatio and I agree that humans have not been around all that long with respect to the age of the Earth. What do you say?

  11. on 14 Dec 2011 at 5:54 am 11.BEH said …

    “Faith certainly tells us what the senses do not, but not the contrary of what they see; it is above, not against them.” -Blaise Pascal

    “Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.” -Albert Einstein

    Just thought you’d all like to see what two of the most respected scientists (physicists specifically) in history thought of such a subject.

  12. on 14 Dec 2011 at 10:04 am 12.Anonymous said …

    I love the way you mentally ill people, aka Christians, cherry pick your quotes in order to rationalize your delusion. You have no proof, so you wrap yourself in a security blanket and ignore the obvious.

    Here’s the facts of the matter. All gods are imaginary.

    BEH, we could do with a laugh. Why don’t you post the reasons you believe in a god? We already know that you won’t have any proof, only a childish desire to believe in a sky daddy.

    Still, make us laugh. What stupid reason do you have to think that the myths and legends of a bunch of illiterate goat herders represent some form of sacred knowledge?

    “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings” – Einstein on religion.

  13. on 14 Dec 2011 at 12:23 pm 13.Anonymous said …

    “Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.” -Albert Einstein

    Childish superstition: Einstein’s letter makes view of religion relatively clear

    Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

    In the letter, he states: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people.

    “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

  14. on 14 Dec 2011 at 1:04 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    BEH, Pascal was a Catholic who died nearly 350 years ago. His wager is one of the most brain-dead arguments for a Christian god that is regularly trotted out by believers.

    If you are playing a weight of numbers game, why then are you theist? Surely the fact that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists should convince you that god is an unnecessary construct? You’re the one that brought up highly respected scientists after all.

    Of course, you’re only quoting the above because it suits you and allows you to justify your illogical beliefs. Otherwise you’d be an atheist just like the majority of highly educated people the world over.

    If you’d like to quote a world-famous current scientist, then Steven Hawking says “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”. Strange though that instead of embracing his comments, theists then complain that he’s a scientist and shouldn’t be speaking of theology. Such is the bizarre world of the two-faced and desperate believer.

  15. on 14 Dec 2011 at 2:06 pm 15.Anonymous said …

    Someone got ahold of Line’s full letter!

    “Additionally, science is not a system of belief. To ask if a scientist ‘believes’ in the theory of evolution is an improper question because the term ‘belief’ implies a position or opinion based on faith. A biologist would properly say he/she understands and acknowledges the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Belief is an act of faith and is not necessarily concerned with the availability of supporting evidence. For this reason, beliefs are not considered to be within the realm of science. Moreover, the federal courts have ruled that creation science, a religious concept or belief, is not science at all. [See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 764 (E.D.Pa.2005); McLean v. Ark. Bd. of Educ., 529 F.Supp. 1255, 1259 (E.D.Ark.1982) (dismissing “creation science” as “simply not a science”).] Therefore, it is not considered relevant content for a purely science classroom.”

  16. on 14 Dec 2011 at 6:07 pm 16.Lou (DFW) said …

    Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction

    http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

    Dinosaur Denialism

    http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/14/dinosaur-denialism/

  17. on 15 Dec 2011 at 6:43 am 17.dave said …

    In all these comments and videos promoting evolution, faith is so necessary. There are so many aspects to evolution and creation that it is impossible to understand everything. Personally, I am a Christian and I don’t believe in evolution for plenty of reasons, but I do not reject the idea that if God wanted to create life by means of evolution then he sure could.
    I just want to point out that all those who have posted, or taken interest in this topic, and have claimed to believe evolution wholeheartedly, it sure sound like FAITH to me. To believe in evolution (a science lacking total objectiveness) one needs faith, which is what Christianity is all about.

  18. on 15 Dec 2011 at 1:13 pm 18.Boz said …

    “I just want to point out that all those who have posted, or taken interest in this topic, and have claimed to believe evolution wholeheartedly, it sure sound like FAITH to me.”

    Dave

    It is because when they use the term evolution they never define it. They use this term as a blanket belief that encompasses speciation to common descent. A great deal of it is taken on faith because this is what they are suppose to believe. They could not begin to tell you why it is true without posting quotes from other websites.

  19. on 15 Dec 2011 at 2:09 pm 19.MrQ said …

    dave, post #17

    To believe in evolution (a science lacking total objectiveness) one needs faith

    Boz, post #18

    They could not begin to tell you why it is true without posting quotes from other websites.

    Let’s try. We’ll use only the facts. Why not pick up the ball where 40YA dropped it in post #10. OK?

    “Consider that the planet Earth is billions of years old. When do you suppose humans came about by divine force/intervention? A billion years ago? 6000 years ago? What does your bible say about that?
    Horatio and I agree that humans have not been around all that long with respect to the age of the Earth. What do you say?”

    dave/Boz, let’s begin. Agree or disagree? Add, as you desire, whatever data and facts you wish. Let’s roll.

  20. on 15 Dec 2011 at 6:04 pm 20.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.Boz said …

    “It is because when they use the term evolution they never define it. They use this term as a blanket belief that encompasses speciation to common descent.”

    First you claim we don’t define it, then you explain how we define it.

    “A great deal of it is taken on faith because this is what they are suppose to believe.”

    That is untrue. Faith a belief for which there is no evidence or proof. That fits the definition of a theist.

    “They could not begin to tell you why it is true without posting quotes from other websites.”

    Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether or not evolution is true. The only relevant point is whether or not god exists. That point is independent of evolution. You theists don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god. So rather than admit your imaginary god is simply a matter of faith, you attack evolution and atheists by instead claiming that evolution is a matter of faith.

    Most, if not all, theists here are intellectually dishonest. A few are outright liars.

  21. on 15 Dec 2011 at 6:31 pm 21.MrQ said …

    Lou,
    Most/All theists here (Boz, dave, 40YA, The Hor, etc) won’t engage in a discussion of evolution if ONLY facts are to be presented. Slippery people that they are they realize what the conclusion will be. Oh Yeah…LOL!! ;-)

    But what good is their belief if it’s not open to question? They’re here on WWGHA telling everyone about the wonders of their particular god. Some of them even claim that you can use science to undeniably prove the existence of their god – so far none have been able to do so. Poor saps don’t realize that an act of faith does NOT require facts, data, evidence, or logical thought of any kind.

  22. on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:17 pm 22.Boz said …

    Mr Q,

    Since you want to talk about when humans appeared it seems you want to just jump right over any evolution discussions.

    Tell you what. Give me the facts but not until you define evolution as you see it. Maybe just one aspect, it is a very large umbrella term. Then we can talk turkey.

    capisci?

  23. on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:48 pm 23.MrQ said …

    22 Boz,
    Excuse me. Humans are just another evolved species. Generally speaking, evolution is change in species over time. Often evolution is driven by things such as changing environmental/geographical conditions, access to water (a new idea I recently heard about), and competition for sex.

    Let’s see what we can agree upon and set some ground rules. Nothing controversial, just the facts, as we have agreed upon.
    1) Earth is really old. Over 3 billion years old.
    2) Early life forms (2.5+ billion years ago) were simple single celled varieties.
    3) Humans have existed on Earth for less than 500 million years.

    I know some of the facts are broad, but these statements are realities from where a discussion may begin. We can refine the dates/times as we proceed….. fine tune things, if you will.

    Add some of your own information (for and/or against this information) and let’s go.

  24. on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:49 pm 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Boz said …

    “Since you want to talk about when humans appeared it seems you want to just jump right over any evolution discussions.

    Tell you what. Give me the facts but not until you define evolution as you see it. Maybe just one aspect, it is a very large umbrella term. Then we can talk turkey.”

    Can you talk anything other than intellectual dishonesty?

  25. on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:50 pm 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    23.MrQ said …

    “Add some of your own information (for and/or against this information) and let’s go.”

    It will never happen.

  26. on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:59 pm 26.Boz said …

    “Excuse me. Humans are just another evolved species.”

    Are they? You will need to establish this fact. Once you have done this I will accept that point as fact.

    Second, your points 1, 2 and 3 are irrelevant until you define what you desire to prove.

    Next, I still have not seen your definition for evolution or the facet you will be proving. Speciation? common descent? what? I await your reworked synopsis.

  27. on 15 Dec 2011 at 8:05 pm 27.MrQ said …

    Boz

    “Excuse me. Humans are just another evolved species.”
    Are they? You will need to establish this fact. Once you have done this I will accept that point as fact.

    Yes, we are.

    Just accept the facts and let’s get the discussion started. I know as a theist you want the easy to swallow pill version. But to place evolution into such a package would require no thought, akin to what it takes to accept the bible as fact.

    So, proceeding, I will accept that you have no problems with the statements I made in post #23. Correct?

  28. on 15 Dec 2011 at 8:07 pm 28.Horatiio said …

    Louiar,

    I believe your new moniker will be remora. I know you have no clue what that is but it evolved from a sponge 20 billion years ago.

    LOL!!

    But you fit the profile of a remora very well. I thought about parrot but that was to easy.

    Boz,

    Mr Q is not going to do anything but ask questions. Its like Obama trying to get America not to look at his record. Although they put their faith in macroevolution, they cannot prove it has ever happened and they know it.

    I have told Q and others I will gladly accept this theory as fact when it is proven to me. It never happens.

  29. on 15 Dec 2011 at 8:19 pm 29.MrQ said …

    From The Hor

    Mr Q is not going to do anything but ask questions…….I have told Q and others I will gladly accept this theory as fact when it is proven to me. It never happens.

    Hor…..You are completely adorable. But perhaps you fail to realize that others do read these posts and because you said it don’t make it so.

    I made some general statements in post #10 and #23. As someone who has already stated that the Earth is billions of years old, you must have no objections.

    It never happens because you are truly Mr anti-science guy.

    Boz

    Tell you what. Give me the facts but not until you define evolution as you see it.

    I have defined evolution. Why are you starting your stupid dance when facts are presented?

  30. on 15 Dec 2011 at 8:54 pm 30.Anonymous said …

    In post #50 on http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2038 (November 12) Horatiio offered proof of his god but he has yet to deliver on that promise.

    It seems strange that Horatiio is insisting that others “prove” things to his satisfaction when he has no intention of providing the same, especially when the subject of evolution is settled and accepted science. No, Horatiio, you saying it isn’t doesn’t matter one whit. That train has long left the station. Time for you to literally get out of the bronze age.

    It’s particularly telling that Horatiio refuses to engage in the discussion of proving that his god is anything but imaginary. As has been noted, it’s clearly a diversion from having to face the fact that his two-thousand year-old superstitions are nothing more than a window back into a primitive system of unsubstantiated beliefs and myths.

  31. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:11 pm 31.MrQ said …

    Suddenly silence.
    Bozo the clown has skipped town with The Hor.
    40YA remains befuddled. dave stays silent.
    The facts remain unchallenged. Evolution is settled and accepted science.

    The here theists are slowly getting it. You cannot use facts to support a faith in any god. We have progress.

  32. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:29 pm 32.Boz said …

    Mr Q,

    Well, you refuse even to offer a cursory definition. All you have done is prove Hor correct. Do you believe by offering even a definition you will somehow get embarrassed?

    The facts have remained unchallenged because you have yet to present one. Text me when you do.

  33. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:34 pm 33.Boz said …

    I went to the aforementioned post:

    Hor’s quote:

    “I can prove God is real Only need one question answered. Nose buster let try you. Do you believe the multi-verse theory is genuine science?”

    I didn’t see where anyone answered his question. You seem to have conviently left that out A. Why would that be?

    I see I have missed much in my time away.

  34. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:38 pm 34.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Horatiio said …

    “I believe your new moniker will be remora.”

    Who cares what you believe?

    “I know you have no clue what that is but it evolved from a sponge 20 billion years ago.”

    Actually, as a certified advance scuba diver I do happen to know what that is.

    “But you fit the profile of a remora very well. I thought about parrot but that was to easy.”

    How is this in any way whatsoever relevant to the discussion about god and religion?

    “Mr Q is not going to do anything but ask questions. Its like Obama trying to get America not to look at his record. Although they put their faith in macroevolution,”

    Hor, as usual, lies about atheists.

    “…they cannot prove it has ever happened and they know it.”

    Let’s assume that’s true. Now, please provide provide proof for you imaginary god as you claimed you would.

    “I have told Q and others I will gladly accept this theory as fact when it is proven to me. It never happens.”

    Again, let’s assume that’s true just to get to the point – we know FOR A FACT that you NEVER, EVER provide the proof of god that you claimed to have. That makes you a liar. We can’t even say that you’re intellectually dishonest, because you first have to be intellectual. You have offered no evidence of that, either.

  35. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:46 pm 35.Lou (DFW) said …

    Hor’s quote:

    “I can prove God is real Only need one question answered. Nose buster let try you. Do you believe the multi-verse theory is genuine science?”

    33.Boz said …

    I didn’t see where anyone answered his question. You seem to have conviently left that out A. Why would that be?

    55.DPK said …

    I’m not nose buster, but I’ll answer that ridiculous question, if you’d like.
    I don’t know. I’m not familiar enough with “M” theory, other variants of string theory, or advanced theoretical physics to make that judgement.

    56.Observer said …

    #50 Hor- Do I think the multiverse theory is real science? Well, first I don’t know anything about string theory much beyond what is on NOVA or in the NYTimes, therefore, I cannot speak to it on its merits. I do know that extremely bright folks like Witten have developed it to explain what is seen in the world. It is now being tested in part at the LHC. The multiverse hypothesis is part of it, but I do not know the details beyond, I believe, it being the result of a type inhomogeneity in the intial expansion of the “Universe” proper. So as far as science goes, it is the correct path- create theories that explain observation, hypothesize what will be found through experimentation and further observation (prediction). The theory holds until it doesn’t. That is science.

    57.Horatiio said …

    Great Nose Buster although these multiverse theories all share the same fundamental problem, that is they can be neither proven or falsified, this is indeed science to you? Science fiction, imagination unconstrained by evidence is science? I want to be sure your are understood.

    THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED! But Hor, evermore the liar, weaseled his way out of then providing his proof for god.

  36. on 15 Dec 2011 at 9:52 pm 36.Anonymous said …

    Funny about that silence thing.

    When it’s time for the theists to answer questions there’s never any detail and it’s either the sound of crickets or the escape clause of faith. No facts, no proof, no science, at most it’s an assertion and it’s turtles all the way down.

    Then, we get the other side of that coin when, all of a sudden, theists want a scientific explanation which they then claim doesn’t satisfy their unscientific and already made-up minds.

    From there there’s never enough detail and even though they, themselves, have absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to offer in place of reality, they’ll continue to claim that they don’t personally believe it as if reality actually gives a crap what they do or don’t personally believe.

    Sadly, the most active theists here really are the epitome of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

  37. on 15 Dec 2011 at 10:00 pm 37.MrQ said …

    Bozo, post #32

    Well, you refuse even to offer a cursory definition.

    Did you happen to read my post #23

    Generally speaking, evolution is change in species over time. Often evolution is driven by things such as changing environmental/geographical conditions, access to water (a new idea I recently heard about), and competition for sex.

    Why do you continue to “clown” around? You ask in post #22:

    Tell you what. Give me the facts but not until you define evolution as you see it. Maybe just one aspect, it is a very large umbrella term. Then we can talk turkey.
    capisci?

    and I offer to talk turkey, discuss simple facts related to a dialog on evolution with three statements that seem to scare you:

    1) Earth is really old. Over 3 billion years old.
    2) Early life forms (2.5+ billion years ago) were simple single celled varieties.
    3) Humans have existed on Earth for less than 500 million years.

    Science is scary to someone such as you, The Hor, 40YA, and dave. No doubt it stirs a few embers of cognitive dissonance within you limited collective cerebral capacities.

    Have another go at the three statements or admit that your faith does not rely on simple science to help prop it up…all it requires is faith. And I thought we could reach a consensus on simple scientific facts and come to differing conclusions and interpretations. Sorry for being unable to give you the easy to swallow pill form you seem to be begging for…LOL!!

  38. on 15 Dec 2011 at 10:54 pm 38.Horatiio said …

    “Great Nose Buster although these multiverse theories all share the same fundamental problem, that is they can be neither proven or falsified, this is indeed science to you? Science fiction, imagination unconstrained by evidence is science? I want to be sure your are understood.”

    Hey, I’m glad someone brought this back up. Buster couldn’t answer this. Maybe Remora. Q-less or A could give it a shot.
    Can any of you atheists answer this question? Pretty straight forward should not be hard. We need a baseline to work with.

    @#1 40YA

    LOL!! I love the math! Finally somebody has put a formula to the problem.

  39. on 15 Dec 2011 at 11:08 pm 39.Lou (DFW) said …

    38.Horatiio said …

    “Hey, I’m glad someone brought this back up. Buster couldn’t answer this. Maybe Remora. Q-less or A could give it a shot.
    Can any of you atheists answer this question? Pretty straight forward should not be hard.”

    They did answer you.

    “We need a baseline to work with.”

    You have already established a baseline – lies, deceptions, and silence.

  40. on 15 Dec 2011 at 11:34 pm 40.DPK said …

    Perhaps not “neither proven nor falsified”

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

    Is it science, or philosophy? Jury is still out on that one.
    What does it have to do with gods, virgin births, resurrections, original sins, and the existence of an afterlife? Not a thing.
    D

  41. on 15 Dec 2011 at 11:58 pm 41.Lou (DFW) said …

    40.DPK said …

    “Is it science, or philosophy? Jury is still out on that one.”

    I personally do not believe that the MV theory is science as strictly defined.

    “What does it have to do with gods, virgin births, resurrections, original sins, and the existence of an afterlife? Not a thing.”

    Correct. They are nothing but fantasies, and we all know how Hor obsessed with fantasies. He’s probably in his “Broadway In The Basement” inventing a new dodge for his latest round of idiotic comments – but only if he can keeps his “eyes” off of “Nose buster dancing with Wiccans.”

  42. on 16 Dec 2011 at 1:38 am 42.MrQ said …

    From The Hor, re: M-theory

    Hey, I’m glad someone brought this back up. Buster couldn’t answer this. Maybe Remora. Q-less or A could give it a shot.
    Can any of you atheists answer this question? Pretty straight forward should not be hard. We need a baseline to work with.

    LOL!!
    WTF, Hor. I thought we were on an evolution topic here. Just simple science. Now you dodge the easy stuff and go for heavy duty physics. Please try and stay ON TOPIC. If, however, you disagree with M theory, multiverses, and cutting edge modern day physics, you’re welcome to try and challenge present day thinking. Oh, good luck with that my slack jawed yokel friend.

    So, back onto the topic of evolution. Everyone here knows you accept the 3+ billion year old model for the planet Earth and 13+ billion year old universe. See my post #37 above and comment on point #2 and #3 to re-establish our thread. Remember, TRY YOUR BEST and STAY FOCUSED.

  43. on 16 Dec 2011 at 1:50 am 43.Hell Yeah said …

    Evidence of Evolution

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

    ——————

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  44. on 16 Dec 2011 at 2:26 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    42.MrQ said …

    “WTF, Hor. I thought we were on an evolution topic here. Just simple science. Now you dodge the easy stuff and go for heavy duty physics.”

    When Hor is defending religion, he frequently redefines atheism in order to attack it. But when he claims to have proof of god, he requires a very strict, precise definition of science in order to form an excuse to withdraw his alleged proof.

  45. on 16 Dec 2011 at 3:00 pm 45.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Boz said …

    “I didn’t see where anyone answered his question. You seem to have conviently left that out A. Why would that be?

    THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED! But Hor, evermore the liar, weaseled his way out of then providing his proof for god.”

    And as expected, Bozo is now in hiding.

  46. on 16 Dec 2011 at 3:39 pm 46.DPK said …

    Agree, the question was answered multiple times. Another of the great deceivers (don’t recall which one exactly) also offered to provide “proof” of god’s existence if we would simply define what would constitute proof. I offered to respond to that, but simply asked, multiple times, for the person to simply clarify how he defined “god”. I mean, evidence for or against something has to be evaluated in light of what the “something” is, no?
    No one would respond.
    So, here you have an attempt to debate an issue that the other side won’t participate in, and they scream foul.
    So Hor, Boz… here you go again. Lou and I have BOTH answered your question. No, at this point in time, multi-verse theory does not rise to the definition of “science” because at this point it is not specific enough to be testable. Will that ever change? Perhaps. Don’t know. But remember, that no one here is claiming that we have a personal relationship with someone in an alternate universe, or that that someone listens to our thoughts, grants us wishes, and requires that we worship them.
    Now that you have that answer, please provide the promised proof for the existence of gods… any one will do.
    Will they answer??????
    Don’t hold your breath…………….

  47. on 16 Dec 2011 at 3:40 pm 47.DPK said …

    And Lou……….
    Liking you more and more….I’ve been a certified diver since 1978 and a divemaster since 1989…. a kindred spirit.

  48. on 16 Dec 2011 at 4:13 pm 48.Xenon said …

    “No, at this point in time, multi-verse theory does not rise to the definition of “science” because at this point it is not specific enough to be testable.”

    Macroevolution also is not testable so it is not science.

    Abiogenesis is not testable therefore it is not science.

    Theories are not science? I do believe Dr Michio Kaku would disagree.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiROWO6iVs

  49. on 16 Dec 2011 at 4:24 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    48.Xenon said …

    “Macroevolution also is not testable so it is not science.

    Abiogenesis is not testable therefore it is not science.”

    Let’s assume that’s true. How does it in anyway whatsoever alter the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god?

  50. on 16 Dec 2011 at 4:44 pm 50.DPK said …

    I think Lou might be my long lost twin or something.

    Yes Xenon…. this discussion is not about evolution or biogenesis. So, even assuming your statement is true… are you now going to prove that gods exist?
    D

  51. on 16 Dec 2011 at 4:56 pm 51.DPK said …

    48.Xenon said …
    I said… emphasis added…
    “No, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, multi-verse theory does not rise to the definition of “science” because at THIS POINT it is not specific enough to be testable.”
    Theories are not science? I do believe Dr Michio Kaku would disagree.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZiROWO6iVs

    Thanks for the link Xenon. I take it you have not watched it? Because it fully supports what I said. At this point m-theory is speculation, but Dr. Kaku speaks of coming satellite DATA that may support the idea.

    Now that we have dismissed that red herring, can we have your proof for the existence of gods, please?

    There, taking a cue from Black Wolf, I asked nicely and didn’t call you an idiot…. maybe that will work?
    D

  52. on 16 Dec 2011 at 5:29 pm 52.DPK said …

    And Xenon… “testable” does not mean you have to be able to reproduce something in real time. We can “test” gravity, but we cannot “produce” gravity. But we can make predictions based on the theory and observe to see if the evidence supports it. Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of evidence we would expect to find if the idea where true… and that is exactly what we find…. That is science too.
    I really enjoyed a quote from the link that HY provided in #43
    “Biological evolution is far from being universally accepted by Americans….
    [but] For the vast majority of biologists, the debate over whether evolution occurs took place in the 19th century and has long been settled–evolution won. The noted environmental biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky summed it up in 1973 by saying “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”.

    Still waiting for you to provide proof of your god though.

  53. on 16 Dec 2011 at 5:42 pm 53.MrQ said …

    Xenon, post #48,
    You are also amped up on physics now?
    Whatever happened to our evolution discussion – the original subject of this thread?
    Why don’t we chat about physics after we finish with the evolution discussion? You can ponder and come up with a logical explanation of the double slit experiment (NO, it’s not about your favourite lesbian fantasy).
    But let’s tie up all those messy loose ends about evolution and “simpler” science involving timelines – which are testable.

  54. on 16 Dec 2011 at 8:52 pm 54.Horatiio said …

    Oh this is sweet. Louiar And DPK are kindred spirits.

    Yes, boys we could tell. Quite possibly one spirit.

    X makes a great point and Louiar/DPK agreed. Macroevolution and Abiogeneis are not supported by science yet you believe. Why?

    Shouldn’t you kindred spirits be on Dr Michio Kaku’s blog complaining there is no evidence for multiverse and that he is delusional!

    LOL!!

    Merry Christmas boys. My work is complete for now.

  55. on 16 Dec 2011 at 9:02 pm 55.MrQ said …

    From The Hor

    Merry Christmas boys. My work is complete for now.

    What? I thought the work on evolution was just getting under way. Could you at least prod Bozo, dave, or 40YA into action on this thread?

    We can talk physics after evolution…didn’t you read post #42?
    How about your or Bozo’s “cursory definition” of evolution? I provided one.
    Merry Xmas and (to be inclusive) Happy Hanukkah

  56. on 16 Dec 2011 at 9:40 pm 56.40 year Atheist said …

    Evolution evidence is speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable (the proverbial pre-Cambrian rabbit is not a falsifier, it is a theory adjuster).

    The likelihood probability calculation is not based on any real numerical values, except the number of inferences being taken. Actual probability calculations that are performed on the known instances of mutations are rejected by Materialists, who increasingly assert Selection Only, without mutation. The conclusion is that the actual probability is either logically zero or is factually unknown.

    The relevance factor is that evolution is irrelevant as a search for facts; it has never been the instrument of causing a major breakthrough in biology; it is always retrofit. Evolution can never be an incorrigible truth, because science never produces those. Science produces contingent factoids, not truth. Because of its limited capabilities, science is too weak to provide a truth value that is not actually a contingent factoid; in reality, truth must be sought and found outside of science. For this reason, Philosophical Materialists reject the concept of truth, and therefore are relativistic, only. And this is the logical death of Philosophical Materialism: if there is no truth, then Philosophical Materialism cannot be true. This is on top of the irrational assertion that no non-material reality is found within the material realm, therefore it does not exist.

    Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.

  57. on 16 Dec 2011 at 9:49 pm 57.Lou (DFW) said …

    54.Horatiio said …

    “X makes a great point and Louiar/DPK agreed. Macroevolution and Abiogeneis are not supported by science yet you believe. Why?”

    Once again, Hor lies about something irrelevant to the fact that there is no evidence for god. Even if Macroevolution and Abiogeneis are not true or are not science, then it in no way whatsoever changes the fact that Hor has no evidence for his imaginary god. It does not change the fact that Hor is a liar in that he has no proof for god as he claimed.

    “Shouldn’t you kindred spirits be on Dr Michio Kaku’s blog complaining there is no evidence for multiverse and that he is delusional!”

    We could be, but so what? How is that relevant to the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god?

    “My work is complete for now.”

    Now we have more evidence of your mental illness. First, it’s the pathological lying. Then it was your fantasies of fellow “bloggers” prancing about with you in your “Broadway In The Basement” fantasy. Now it’s grandiose delusion – a mental disorder characterized by overestimates of your own intelligence and importance. All of that on top of delusions about god makes you one sick individual.

  58. on 16 Dec 2011 at 9:52 pm 58.DPK said …

    X makes a great point and Louiar/DPK agreed. Macroevolution and Abiogeneis are not supported by science yet you believe. Why?

    Again Hor lies. Neither of us said that. We said, “let’s assume that’s true…(meaning “for the sake of argument…” what has that got to do with the existence of gods?” To which we received……….. silence… followed by lies from you.

    If your jesus/god person is real, you are going to have some real answering to do for your propensity for spreading lies. “Bearing false witness” I think your magic book calls it. You sir, are a pathological false witness bearer! Ho Ho Ho!
    Have a great time with the Christmas edition of Broadway in the basement! Let me guess, in this version Santa dances with Wicans while baby Jesus sings “oh come all ye fatihful” to the 3 wise men.
    Sound like you should have a good wank to that one!

  59. on 16 Dec 2011 at 9:57 pm 59.Lou (DFW) said …

    56.40 year Atheist said …

    “Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.”

    For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that’s true. How is it evidence of your imaginary god?

    Why is it that you and Hor want to limit your discussion to evolution when this is a blog for the discussion of god and religion?

    Why don’t you follow Hor’s similar suggestion to “be on Dr Michio Kaku’s blog complaining there is no evidence for multiverse and that he is delusional.” Why are you on this blog arguing about evolution? Why don’t you go to http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com and argue about evolution there? Evolution and multiverses are 100% irrelevant to the existence of your imaginary god.

    I don’t expect an answer from you because you won’t answer with the truth – there is no evidence for your imaginary god, and if you went to http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/ you would get your heads handed to you on a platter.

  60. on 17 Dec 2011 at 1:03 am 60.MrQ said …

    40YA,
    The evidence is all there…Frozen in time as fossils and living within our cells. We can actually see links between us and chimps (See Ken Miller’s fantastic analysis, not to mention his slaughter of the irreducible complexity idea). Pssst, Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic. Who’d a thunk it?

    Wondering if your “GRANDE” idea is one of fixed species? All you seem to do is tell everyone that evolution, despite the “mountains of evidence and data”, is wrong. So, what do you propose? What have you actually got?

    Maybe it’s

    truth must be sought and found outside of science.

    But where to start?

    Is it possible to start outside of science and move to a position and accept evolution? Crikey, mate, it is!!! Think Catholics and certain Baptists here. See biologos.org

  61. on 17 Dec 2011 at 1:42 am 61.A said …

    Look at post 57 and 58.

    Lou and DPK and without a doubt the same individual. They both ramble on about some broadway in a basement and their post are 3 minutes apart. Then check out other post where they continually follow one another and prop up one another’s post.

    Trolls, don’t feed them.

  62. on 17 Dec 2011 at 1:46 am 62.Anonymous said …

    I don’t expect an answer from you because you won’t answer with the truth – there is no evidence for your imaginary god, and if you went to http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/ you would get your heads handed to you on a platter.

    True that, but it would be quite funny to watch. In addition they have no incentive to do so as it’s clear that their repeated questions about evolution are diversions to rationalize away the total lack of evidence of any kind for their imaginary god.

  63. on 17 Dec 2011 at 1:53 am 63.Ben said …

    Quotes from the author of “whyevolutionistrue”

    May I add the blog is no more than a shrine to other atheist. Not really science.

    Now the quotes{

    … recent work shows that our genetic resemblance to our evolutionary cousins [chimps] is not quite as close as we thought … to consider an analogy, if you change only one percent of the letters of this page, you will alter far more than 1 percent of the sentences … more than 80% of all the proteins shared by the two species differ by at least one amino acid.” (pg 230)

    “There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinise every aspect of human behavior, turning its study into a scientific parlour game. But imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science; they are stories. Stephen Jay Gould satirized them as “Just-so Stories,” after Kipling”. (pg 248)

    And yet, he seems to be perfectly willing to imaginatively reconstruct how flight evolved:

    “… we can make some guesses about how natural selection fashioned modern birds … then followed a feathery covering, probably for insulation …” (pg 49)

    Not much there for the “why”

    See More

    http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/book-review-why-evolution-is-true-by-jerry-coyne-part-1/

  64. on 17 Dec 2011 at 2:09 am 64.Anonymous said …

    Ben, none of the above does anything to dispute the fact that Christianity is an emotional crutch for the mentally weak, needy, and delusional.

    Considering that you never post evidence to the contrary, it would seem that you agree with this point.

    The good news is that even if you do waste your life worrying about pleasing little baby Jesus with your child raping priests, heaven and hell are imaginary, just like your god.

  65. on 17 Dec 2011 at 3:56 am 65.DPK said …

    61.A said …
    Look at post 57 and 58.
    Lou and DPK and without a doubt the same individual….

    Well, I guess you can add that to the long list of things you think are true, but are not. I assume whoever you are, you aren’t going to provide evidence for gods either? Nice try at a dodge, but your busted.

    “Broadway in the Basement” is Hor’s private sexual fantasy. If you’d been here a while you would have read about it. Almost as funny as one of the cretins, and I forget which one now, (not that it matters, they’re all the same, basically) admonished me and called me an idiot for not knowing that Bangkok was a large city in India that used to be called Mambia. The faithful here are good for a laugh now and then, if not much else.

  66. on 17 Dec 2011 at 8:03 am 66.Severin said …

    63 Ben
    “Not really science.“
    Of course not!

    THIS IS SCIENCE:
    1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

  67. on 17 Dec 2011 at 1:29 pm 67.Anonymous said …

    Of course it’s science and it’s scientifically accurate. That’s how we know that the bible is the word of god.

    All of our science confirms that the universe was created from water, it’s so obvious.

    Science would confirm if it wasn’t afraid of the truth that the earth was created before light. It’s also the most obvious order. Water, Earth, Light. Come on!

    Look at verse 3. God created water, the earth and light and he caused the day and the night, and in that order. How could the ancient’s know that if it wasn’t told to them by a god?

    It’s only stupid scientists that think that the day and the night come about because of the earth’s rotation around the sun, or that we need the sun and the stars for there to be light. Those stupid scientists claim that the stars were created before the earth and the grasses but we know how idiotic they are because the bible tells a different story.

    Stupid, stupid, scientists with their PhDs and their years of study, and their peer reviewed journals, and their experiments, and their proof, and their evidence.

    Horatiio, Ben, Boz, Curmudgeon, 40YA they all know that the bible is literally true. How could you atheists and scientists be so stupid as to not know what the illiterate goat herders knew?

  68. on 17 Dec 2011 at 2:35 pm 68.Cleo said …

    @56 40 YA

    Your argument is similar to Plantegan’s (Sp?) and is very logical and reasonable. I think that is why the trolls above ignore your argument and the actual topic of the thread and start attacking religion.

    When they cannot deal with an actual argument they jump on their horse and run off in all four directions.

    Ben,

    Your posted paragraphs are quite funny. Shouldn’t the title be “Why evolution cannot be true”? They keep insisting something is true and it cannot even stand scientific scrutiny much less ever be considered for truth.

  69. on 17 Dec 2011 at 3:00 pm 69.Anonymous said …

    Science vs. religion

    http://imgur.com/z5S5z

  70. on 17 Dec 2011 at 3:53 pm 70.Anonymous said …

    #68 Anyone who would call “40YA” “very logical and reasonable” is a fool or idiot. 40YA does not even rise to the level of fatuous, he merely bloviates without benefit of education, or intelligence.

    To wit:

    “Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.”

    To find anything of value in this one must be a simpleton impressed by the most shoddy and vulgar linguistic baubles imaginable.

  71. on 17 Dec 2011 at 7:03 pm 71.A said …

    With regards to post #70

    To find anything of value in this one must be a simpleton impressed by the most shoddy and vulgar linguistic baubles imaginable.

  72. on 17 Dec 2011 at 7:33 pm 72.Anonymous said …

    #71, oh Horatiio, you are such a wit and it’s always so original when you use one of your sock puppet accounts to repeat something someone else has written with your grade-school taunts. LOLHor!

  73. on 17 Dec 2011 at 10:55 pm 73.Asher said …

    “… recent work shows that our genetic resemblance to our evolutionary cousins [chimps] is not quite as close as we thought … to consider an analogy, if you change only one percent of the letters of this page, you will alter far more than 1 percent of the sentences … more than 80% of all the proteins shared by the two species differ by at least one amino acid.” (pg 230)”

    This is of no surprise. Man did not evolve, he was created by God. Man evolving from the great apes is no more than a fairytale concocted on a long boat ride.

  74. on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:20 am 74.Hell Yeah said …

    “Man did not evolve, he was created by God.”

    There is a better chance man was cross bread between aliens and apes by ancient aliens than being created by magic, dirt, and a rib by a hidden god. Who knows, maybe when the ancient aliens were around, they were misreprestend to be gods, hence why each culture has created their own type of gods.

  75. on 18 Dec 2011 at 2:35 am 75.Anonymous said …

    Evolution:

    http://i.imgur.com/ijB6V.jpg

    See the video here:

    http://youtu.be/efpjE_wg_1M

  76. on 18 Dec 2011 at 5:35 am 76.Anonymous said …

    So, let’s review what Christians like Ben, Boz, Cleo, Curmudgeon, Horatiio aka Xenon and friends, 40YA, etc believe. Please don’t have any hot beverages in your hands because this is going to be funny, really funny.

    After a lifetime of being a monomaniacal, sadist bastard the Goat Herder’s god Yahweh realized that he needed an image makeover. “Shit”, thought Yahweh, “I should have seen this coming, what with me being all omniscient, but in a few thousand years my legacy is going to be in jeopardy. I must do something about it. I know, I’ll do me one of those virgin births, come back as my own son, then a few years later I’ll prove how much I love everyone by offering myself as a sacrifice myself to myself. Then, seeing as everyone loves a good zombie flick, I’ll come back as my own ghost so that people can prove their devotion by eating my flesh and drinking my blood. Hell, yeah, I’m good”.

    Now, seeing as Yahweh was married to Asherah (you Christians do know that your god had a wife, don’t you?) he could have simply delivered himself there and then but he wanted to make a big entrance. So, he slipped his godly pork sausage into a local hottie called Mary who dutifully delivered the magic bundle some months later. According to plan, Yahweh later made up the ultimate passive-aggressive guilt-trip by telling everyone that they owed him everything on account of him being so loving that he took a three day nap in a local cave in order to atone for his putting eve in a no-win situation due to her contrived conversation with a talking snake.

    So, let’s compare that with a more likely scenario. Mary, if she even existed at all, was a local skank or ho who enjoyed sucking bronze-age dick for pleasure or profit. Being that birth-control two thousands years ago was on a par with the current Catholic practice of whipping it out in time, Mary ended up with a bun in the oven. Rather than admitting that she didn’t know which of the local lads was the father, Mary (if she even existed) made up a story about having never been with a boy so, clearly, hers was a virgin birth.

    So, what’s more likely? That a book about a talking snake, unicorns, an impossible tower, an impossible boat, a flat earth, a man who lived in a fish, battles that never actually happened, places that didn’t ever exist, a people aided by an omnipotent god who took 40 years to complete a less than two week walk, and foreskins, lots of foreskins, is actually the inerrant word of a supernatural deity, or that it’s all a load of made up shit that would impress bronze-age goat herders, the gullible and the foolish?

    This is why the likes of 40YA and friends have to post their lengthy nonsense. Once they are forced to confront their vapid claims they must either go full force into delusion-maintaining rationalization, or they need to do everything that they can to prevent the conversation turning to their inability to offer any kind of proof for their unbelievably stupid stories

  77. on 18 Dec 2011 at 1:11 pm 77.Lou (DFW) said …

    45.Lou (DFW) said …

    33.Boz said …

    “I didn’t see where anyone answered his question. You seem to have conviently left that out A. Why would that be?”

    “THE QUESTION WAS ANSWERED! But Hor, evermore the liar, weaseled his way out of then providing his proof for god.”

    And as expected, Bozo is now in hiding.”

    Three days later and Bozo is still in hiding.

    Why would that be?

  78. on 18 Dec 2011 at 2:34 pm 78.Anonymous said …

    Why do Christians even need to set conditions before they will post their evidence for their imaginary god?

    The answer is obvious. They have nothing at all.

    That’s why these delusional fools play their games. If they had evidence, they’d post it. The have nothing but their security blanket of wanting to believe that sky daddy loves them. That’s all they have. It’s pathetic.

    Come on Boz, Horatiio, Curmudgeon, 40YA. Stop being liars and frauds. Let’s have your best shot.

    Prove your god exists. You are talking about the supposed most supreme being ever. Yet you are clearly afraid to post your evidence. That’s why you delay. That’s why you set up impossible conditions.

    It’s obvious. You are afraid to fail. You are suffering from a delusion and you KNOW it. Prove it, go back and live in the bronze age, or STFU.

  79. on 18 Dec 2011 at 3:29 pm 79.Anonymous said …

    Unlike many of the people that post here, most of the Christians I know are nice people. However, they don’t realize that they don’t actually believe in the bible nor do they really follow the teachings of Christ. If you have a conversation with them, it goes like this.

    “Do you believe in god?” Yes, of course I do.
    “You believe that god created the world?” Yes.
    “An entire universe, just for us?” Well, maybe not just for us.
    And god created man? Yes
    “He created man from a handful of dirt?” Well, no, not like that.
    “He created women from a man’s rib?” Well, no, not like that.
    “How about the talking snake?” Well, that’s a metaphor.
    “The tower of Babel?” Well, that’s just a metaphor too.
    “Noah’s Ark?” Yes, that happened.
    “Two of every kind? From all over the world, including the continents Noah didn’t know of, and they all had enough food and water, space, didn’t die or eat each other?” Well, it didn’t have to happen exactly like that. Perhaps it’s just a metaphor.
    “The virgin birth?” Yes
    “Really?” Yes
    “Jesus was crucified?” Yes
    “He was resurrected?” Yes
    “Physically walked the earth?” Well, maybe in spirit.
    “Good people go to Heaven and bad people to hell?” Yes
    “Murderers who convert on death row go to heaven?” Yes, if they believe.
    “Good people who haven’t heard of god or Jesus go to hell?” No
    “That’s not what the bible says” Well, my god wouldn’t do that.
    “Animals and pets go to heaven?” Yes
    “But they don’t have a ‘soul’, how do they go to heaven?”
    My preacher says they do.
    “Do you follow the ten commandments?” Of course I do.
    “So you rest on the Sabbath?” Well, no, but I follow the others.
    “You sure?” Well, as best I can considering that times have changed.
    “Aren’t they the word of god?” Well, things are different now. That was the old testament.
    “Do you follow the teachings of Christ?” Yes
    “All of them?” Well, my preacher tells us what’s important and what’s not.
    “Why do you believe all these things?” I’ve never really thought about it, it’s the way I was brought up.
    “Do you believe that god exists?” Yes
    “What about the other gods, do they exist?” Of course not.
    “But yours does and theirs doesn’t?” I’ve never really thought about it.
    “Can you prove your god exists” No, but I want to believe that it is true.
    “Why do you go to church?” I enjoy the service and the community.
    “What that church?” I tried several others and I didn’t like the service or the preacher.
    “So you church-shopped?” Yes, you have to find a church that is comfortable for you.
    “Is your religion important to you?” It is about how we live our lives as Christians.
    “So it’s more about philosophy or way to live a good life than taking everything in the bible literally?” Err, yes, I suppose it is.

  80. on 18 Dec 2011 at 7:30 pm 80.Al said …

    TO 40 year Atheist #56

    That is a very good observation. If man is not created by intelligence hen we cannot trust anything we perceive.

  81. on 19 Dec 2011 at 3:44 am 81.Anonymous said …

    “That is a very good observation. If man is not created by intelligence hen we cannot trust anything we perceive.”

    So says someone who believes that a magic man in the sky breathed life into dust and created a woman from a man’s rib. So, really, there’s no reason to take seriously anything from someone who believes that level of fantasy and nonsense.

  82. on 19 Dec 2011 at 3:22 pm 82.Anonymous said …

    #80 is a wonderful example of the double standards and hypocrisy we’ve come to expect of the sky-daddy believers.

    When it comes to the real world if it contradicts their book of myths, Xtians demand evidence of explanations of extraordinary detail, even down to the level of individual cells. Usually, these explanations are above their educational attainments so they can then say “Oh, but I don’t understand / believe that”.

    Yet, when it comes to explanations that are consistent with the educational attainments of illiterate goat herders of 2000 years ago, anything goes and everything is valid without proof; 24×7 observation by invisible beings, check; magic man in the sky wishing world into existence, check; zombies, check; talking animals, check; crackers that turn into flesh in your mouth, check; wine that turns into blood, check; a million plus species of animals on a wooden boat, check; walking on water, check; and so it goes on.

    When you ask these Xtians for their proof, they either run away, change the subject, or respond with the delusion-preserving answer of “I just know it in my heart”.

    Yeah, right, and we know that’s Xtianity is just a security blanket or delusional thinking. Take your pick, it’s certainly not based on facts or anything approaching reality.

  83. on 19 Dec 2011 at 5:28 pm 83.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Al said …

    “TO 40 year Atheist #56

    That is a very good observation. If man is not created by intelligence hen we cannot trust anything we perceive.”

    56.40 year Atheist said …

    “Regardless of the inferential evidence that piles up in mountainous piles of speculation, evolution is not now and can never be a rational force for any worldview, certainly not one that self-refutes on command.”

    Both comments are down-right stupid.

    Evolution isn’t “a rational force for any worldview” any more than is gravity “a rational force for any worldview.”

  84. on 19 Dec 2011 at 6:19 pm 84.Anonymous said …

    #83. All part and parcel of the way theists try to reduce cold hard facts to a worldview, an ism, or a belief so that they can then argue for a false equivalency rather than address the validity of their own claims.

    Too bad they can’t present their supposed evidence for these imaginary gods of theirs.

    Congratulations on getting that far in 40YA’s word salad. By the end of the first paragraph I’m either laughing hysterically or shaking my head in disbelief that someone could put that many words together without making any kind of sense.

  85. on 19 Dec 2011 at 8:32 pm 85.Ian said …

    From #56 40 Year Atheist

    “Evolution evidence is speculated/inferred from instances of empirical findings; not falsifiable”

    Your comment is still getting a lot of run. I have to agree. I can’t see how a theory based on observable changes within a species can be expanded across species and be called fact like some would like to do. There is not any empirical evidence for it yet we have those bound to defend it like a religion. It is quite fascinating since there is no way to falsify what might have happened.

  86. on 19 Dec 2011 at 9:36 pm 86.Lou (DFW) said …

    85.Ian said …

    “Your comment is still getting a lot of run. I have to agree. I can’t see how a theory based on observable changes within a species can be expanded across species and be called fact like some would like to do. There is not any empirical evidence for it yet we have those bound to defend it like a religion. It is quite fascinating since there is no way to falsify what might have happened.”

    How is discussing evolution any more appropriate than discussing football here, which you seem to object to?

  87. on 20 Dec 2011 at 1:02 am 87.Anonymous said …

    Ian, just because you, personally, can’t understand evolution means nothing. The level of education needed to understand science is much higher than the bronze-age ramblings of the bible.

    The time to debate evolution passed a long time ago. It’s scientifically accepted. If you have an alternative post it, describe it, and you’ll surely win a Nobel prize should your theory be something a little less senile than the rib-woman hypotheses from the bible

  88. on 20 Dec 2011 at 2:41 am 88.Ian said …

    “Ian, just because you, personally, can’t understand evolution means nothing.”

    Anonymous-

    I will submit to your enlightened expertise. Please show me where I have gone astray in my studies. I look forward to be proven wrong.

  89. on 20 Dec 2011 at 3:44 am 89.Anonymous said …

    Ian, once again you are trying to shift the burden of proof. It won’t work.

    Only you can be held responsible for your inability or refusal to learn. That you chose to remain ignorant to preserve your delusion is entirely your fault.

    If you want to learn about evolution, take a class, go to the library, take charge and stop sitting around asking people to do your thinking for you. Yes, not thinking is the religious way but that’s your choice.

    Once again, the proof that is needed is for your imaginary god. If you want to continue to moan that you don’t understand evolution, then that’s a clear demonstration of your willful ignorance.

    So, let’s have it, Ian. Prove to us that your god is real. We’re saying that it’s bronze-age superstition, a delusion, it’s your emotional crutch and it’s all make believe.

    Prove your god exists, or accept the default position that he doesn’t.

  90. on 20 Dec 2011 at 4:24 am 90.Anonymous said …

    By the way, Ian, whether you accept, reject, understand, misunderstand or can’t even spell evolution doesn’t change the fact that you have absolutely no verifiable evidence for the existence of your god. None at all.

    Even if all aspects of evolutionary theory would be turned over tomorrow nothing would change with respect to the lack of evidence for your god. Your god still would not exist.

    Why do you think differently?

    Why do you think that bitching and moaning about your inability to understand modern biology means that your god is real?

  91. on 20 Dec 2011 at 10:58 am 91.Lou (DFW) said …

    90.Anonymous said …

    “By the way, Ian, whether you accept, reject, understand, misunderstand or can’t even spell evolution doesn’t change the fact that you have absolutely no verifiable evidence for the existence of your god. None at all.”

    Yes, as we have explained over and over, evolution is irrelevant to the existence of god. People like Ian understand and proclaim that football discussions here are irrelevant to the discussion of god, but somehow they don’t understand that discussing evolution is no different. Evolution arguments are a type of red herring that theists use to distract attention from the fact that there is no evidence for their imaginary god. Even the pope and the Catholic Church accept that evolution is true.

    In a few days Ian will be gone. Besides, Ian is probably a sock puppet for one of the theist regulars here.

  92. on 20 Dec 2011 at 9:28 pm 92.Ian said …

    “If you want to learn about evolution, take a class, go to the library, take charge and stop sitting around asking people to do your thinking for you.”

    Anonymous,

    Evolution is quite relevant. It is the topic of this thread. So lets stick with it a moment.

    Another claim but again no facts. I had two semesters of biology in college to go along with HS biology but maybe you have more.

    Would it be you cannot prove evolution but you just accept it because someone told you it was true? If this is the case, how are you different from the Catholics you deride?

    I suspect this is exactly the case since you cannot provide or just refuse to deal with the lack of facts supporting the hypothesis.

  93. on 20 Dec 2011 at 9:42 pm 93.Lou (DFW) said …

    92.Ian said …

    “Evolution is quite relevant. It is the topic of this thread. So lets stick with it a moment.”

    Evolution IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT to the existence of god. What part of that don’t you understand?

    Evolution is a fact that some religious people refuse to accept. That, in effect, is the topic.

  94. on 20 Dec 2011 at 11:06 pm 94.Anonymous said …

    Nothing will ever convince Ian that his position is faulty because he’s deliberately using two different standards for his claims.

    For his god, and his god alone, all is proven until disproven. For anything against his religion, all is unproven by default. By inserting his personal understanding as a requirement he insulates himself against disconfirming views. Basically, he puts his fingers in his ears and claims “I can’t hear you, you don’t matter”.

    Like so many others here, Ian demands answers to his questions but refuses to respond in kind. Like so many others, he already knows that he will claim not to understand whatever is explained to him. That the battle he is fighting was over long ago, and that even his church accepts the premise, doesn’t matter. He’s going to argue until the cows come home that he, personally, doesn’t accept evolution. Seriously, like any of us gives a shit.

    So, Ian, lets give you your premise and see if it changes anything. OK?

    Let’s assume you’ve disproven evolution, proven it false, whatever you want — You choose whatever victory your desire. How do you want to phrase it, let us know.

    Now, given that evolution is off the table, totally destroyed by your arguments, please tell us.

    Do you, or don’t you believe in the god Zeus?
    Using the same standard that you applied above, how can you demonstrate to us that your god is real?

    I think you’ll either retreat to an argument of not having disproven your god or that your god is the only explanation for existence, neither of which constitute evidence for the existence of your god. Prove me wrong, please.

  95. on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:22 am 95.Ian said …

    “Like so many others here, Ian demands answers to his questions but refuses to respond in kind.”

    Wouldn’t that be the purpose of a blog with this title? If I had a blog supporting some religion I would support my premise with facts.

    Anonymous I have made no claim about God so I can only assume you, once again are attempting to change the subject. Why would I defend something I have not claimed? You seem to be quite desperate looking for an out to this question.

    Going back on topic for this thread, what proofs do you have to support evolution as fact? I don’t mean to be demanding, but it is the topic of the thread.

    I am beginning to be convinced you believe because you have been told to believe.

  96. on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:27 am 96.Anonymous said …

    Ian, I offered to let you run with the premise that evolution is false, to let you have your way, yet you still want to argue the point.

    You ran away from that the same way you run away from answering if Zeus exists which is the same way you run away from presenting evidence for your god which is the same way you run away from answering any question.

    You are clearly either a troll, an idiot, or mentally unstable.

  97. on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:45 am 97.Hell Yeah said …

    Ian, trying researching the evidence as I stated in my other post. Here are a few places to start.

    Evidence of Evolution

    http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

    ——————

    29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  98. on 21 Dec 2011 at 10:48 am 98.Anonymous said …

    “Ian” is not interested in learning about evolution.

    “Ian” is only interested in not discussing the lack of evidence that supports his delusion.

  99. on 21 Dec 2011 at 1:00 pm 99.Ian said …

    Just as I thought, you believe because you have been told to believe. You have no clue why you believe. You cover this by attempting to used fallacious arguments to get off the track.

    Have you ever read anything that gives reasoning why evolution is not a conclusive fact with serious holes? I seriously doubt it because you are afraid of what you might find.

    Thanks for your time and you help in producing this link.

  100. on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:06 pm 100.Lou (DFW) said …

    99.Ian said …

    “Just as I thought, you believe because you have been told to believe. You have no clue why you believe.”

    Who “told you to believe” that the sun is the center of the solar system?

    “You cover this by attempting to used fallacious arguments to get off the track.”

    The “track” is for you to provide evidence of your imaginary god. Evolution is a sidetrack that use to avoid it.

    “Have you ever read anything that gives reasoning why evolution is not a conclusive fact with serious holes?”

    Evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. Any “serious holes(?)” that you allege to exist would only exist in theories that explain HOW evolution (or gravity) works, not whether or not it does.

    “I seriously doubt it because you are afraid of what you might find.”

    This is a type “straw man” reply. As it has been told to you time and time again, and as you refuse to acknowledge, if evolution was somehow shown to be untrue, it would NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER affect the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god. And for me personally, and I suspect for almost all atheists, it would not convert me to theism or religion. There is nothing to be afraid of in that regard. The thing that I am most afraid of is wacko nut-jobs forcing the stupidity and foolishness of their religion upon everyone else.

  101. on 21 Dec 2011 at 2:53 pm 101.Hell Yeah said …

    If you read Ian’s first two sentences in #99 you would wonder why he doesn’t relate that to his own belief in a god, or even a certain god. Theists believe because they have been told to believe at a young age. They have no clue why they believe, they just do because the thought of an afterlife is exciting. They can’t provide any real evidence and keep dodging the real questions by bringing up other subjects where they clearly have not done any research on. They only believe what their other die hard god thumpers tell them. It is sad.

  102. on 21 Dec 2011 at 4:11 pm 102.Anonymous said …

    Ian, who sure sounds like Horatiio, was given the opportunity to make his case in #94 as if evolution was proven false.

    It seems his script doesn’t allow for him to make any positive arguments, only to keep shouting that “evolution is false” as if somehow that makes his case for him. It’s all negative from Ian, or Horatiio, or whoever he is.

    He was allowed to frame the disposition of evolution however he wanted. Yet he still won’t make his case.

    Why not and why won’t any theist make an argument for their god? Don’t you guys have anything these days? Are you that trapped in the abusive relationship known as religion that you are afraid to examine your own situation?

    So, once again, lets proceed as if you’ve gained any and every concession you want regarding evolution. Just name them first so we know where you are coming from.

    Also, seeing as you’ve been allowed the luxury of arguing as if evolution does not exist, you should also explain to us what process you are using to replace it. If you have no replacement, or you don’t know, then say that. It’s perfectly valid.

    Now, with that in place, let’s see your argument for the existence of your god. If you can’t make it now, then you clearly have nothing, and all your arguments are a disingenuous device to avoid having to substantiate your beliefs.

  103. on 21 Dec 2011 at 5:00 pm 103.DPK said …

    I wonder why Ian and others here keep falling back to evolution? I mean, as has been pointed out, most mainstream religions (at least the ones that wish to maintain ANY perception of relevance) accept evolution as fact. Many theist scientists see no problem with evolution in relation to a belief in god. In fact, if one believes in god and not in evolution, one must wonder why god would be so deceptive as to plant such an enormous amount of false “evidence” to trick us? As one biologist, whose name escapes me at the moment said, “I believe in God, just not a deceptive one.”
    Actually, evolution is pretty amazing. You’d think the theists would be falling over themselves claiming it was invented by their magical sky-daddy.

  104. on 22 Dec 2011 at 2:40 am 104.Xenon said …

    “you believe because you have been told to believe. You have no clue why you believe. You cover this by attempting to used fallacious arguments to get off the track.”

    You are partly correct Ian. The atheists do sit back with their lack of belief position and claim nothing so they do not have anything to defend. The newer mantra “lack of belief” making it around the atheist community.

    However, this is more about conservative vs liberal. As I have viewed this site, the individuals they ridicule are conservative Christians, the atheist clones buzz word of “delusion” is readily thrown around. They like to use Dawkinite phrasings.

    However, liberal Christians are exempt. Never has an out spoken Liberal Christian been held up for scrutiny. I assert the ideology of Leftist Liberalism is the real driving force. I doubt the regulars here realize this reality but the proof is in the blog.

    Marshall Brain is about as LL as one can get.

  105. on 22 Dec 2011 at 2:48 am 105.Anonymous said …

    Horatiio, Ian, and Xenon, the trinity. Three posters in one.

    So where is your proof for your imaginary god? You know he never shows up in real life, nor does he answer prayers, so what use is he? Why don’t you put the argument to rest and simply show proof — you would if you had some, but you don’t.

    Here’s some good links that show the predictability of the Christian response:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/12/21/denying-the-undeniable-and-failing/

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2011/12/19/gospel-disproof-22-the-unfortunate-alternatives/

    Please do feel free to show the errors in those posts by demonstrating your proof for your otherwise non-existent sky daddy.

  106. on 22 Dec 2011 at 4:23 am 106.Anonymous said …

    Fallacy: Special Pleading

  107. on 22 Dec 2011 at 11:11 am 107.Anonymous said …

    Well, without special pleading they’d have to explain their inconsistent and contradictory arguments as well as a total lack of evidence for their god.

    This way they have inconsistent and contradictory excuses for their inconsistent and contradictory arguments as well as a total lack of evidence for their god.

    Somehow being able to say, “god doesn’t appear in real life because he doesn’t want to” explains things in a way that “gravity never makes things fall up” doesn’t.

  108. on 22 Dec 2011 at 2:13 pm 108.40 year Atheist said …

    Despite claiming that “there is no God”, it now is declared that that statement is not a denial. Instead of a denial, it is a declaration that the Atheist is “without God”. How does this work?

    How does a person come to be “without God”? And that without a denial? The first thought might be that the person had never heard of such a thing as a deity, a First Cause, a God. That would definitely leave the person without God, unless the person had a personal experience of the deity. Presuming it not the case that the person has had a personal experience of the deity, then that person would be “without God”. But that is not the Atheist condition.

    Now if a person has heard of the possibility of such a thing as a deity, First Cause, or God, then how can the person claim to be “without God”, unless the possibility has been first rejected? In fact, the statement is a surreptitious truncation of this statement: “I reject God; therefore I am without God”. Nonetheless, let’s pursue the truncated claim.

    If the possibility of a deity is not rejected, but is rather accepted, then the person cannot be an Atheist.

    If the possibility of a deity is placed on hold pending the receipt of further evidence, then the person has assumed a stance traditionally known as “agnosticism”.

    What other choices are available beyond a) reject; b) accept; c) place the decision on hold? Perhaps: continue in ignorance, having forgotten the whole thing? Atheists have not forgotten the whole thing.

    Atheists have, during the enlightenment centuries and up until recently, directly and positively rejected the existence of deity without trying to conceal that in any form of word play. The exceptions are in places and times of persecution, which did exist: Hume rejected the deity but claimed to be a “sceptic”, in order to get a job professoring at the university – he was rejected because his claim was false.(Note 1) But now the Atheists are not persecuted, yet they insist on disguising their true belief behind word-play.

    Atheists do not place the decision regarding the existence of deity on hold. Their claim of “without God” is made on the basis of having rejected God.(Note 2) So taking that position is a move taken to camouflage their actual rejection, and to protect themselves against an uncomfortable truth: Atheism cannot be proved using Atheist criteria for proof.

    The paradigm is being consciously shifted because Atheism is vulnerable. It makes demands of others that it cannot satisfy itself. It resolves to a position of unproven and unprovable Faith, a religion in the same sense that Atheists define religion. That is the reason for the paradigm shift amongst Atheists during the past decade: they cannot admit to having denied [Q], because they cannot prove their claim of non-existence of [Q]. So they change their stance, rather than change their position. Rather than admit that they believe in a faith-statement, they deny their belief, and conceal it with a new statement claiming that they have not denied [Q]. This, they think, protects them from having to prove their position.

    If they do not deny [Q], and they don’t believe [Q], then they are by traditional definition, agnostic on the subject of [Q]. (Or ignorant of the subject of [Q] altogether). And while claiming faux-atheism in the form of agnosticism outwardly, they think that they are not obliged to prove their position any longer.

    It is agnostic-envy. And outright theft of the agnostic position.

    To claim to believe in, say, [Z] while not really believing in [Z] is dishonest. There is no other way to say that, that I can see: it is dishonest. And at that point it becomes legitimate to ask, “why one would continue a discussion under those conditions, when the other side of the conversation is dishonest?” What rational conclusion can come from such a discussion, other than it is not ever profitable?

    It is a clear indication of the religious, dogmatic character of Atheism: claiming to be logical and fact-oriented on the one hand, and blatantly dishonest on the other when it comes to providing “real” and “material” facts for supporting its own belief system – yet requiring just exactly that of competing belief systems. The conclusion, (no God), is more important than actual logic or actual facts to support it. The conclusion, (no God), is a purely religious tenet.

    Atheists back-slap each other (virtually) on the cleverness of their ruse. But it is so totally transparent to outsiders that it diminishes the credibility of Atheism drastically. Maybe they have come to believe their own deception. That again says something about the rationality of Atheism.

  109. on 22 Dec 2011 at 5:30 pm 109.Lou (DFW) said …

    108.40 year Atheist said …

    “How does a person come to be “without God”

    The same way a person comes to be without Santa Claus. In the context of that, the rest of your essay is simply incorrect, untrue, rambling nonsense.

  110. on 22 Dec 2011 at 6:02 pm 110.DPK said …

    Stan is off his meds again.

    Stan by your own tortured reasoning, you could equally claim that those that deny the existence of Sasquatch are religious in nature and dishonest.

    **It is a clear indication of the religious, dogmatic character of non-Sasquatchism: claiming to be logical and fact-oriented on the one hand, and blatantly dishonest on the other when it comes to providing “real” and “material” facts for supporting its own belief system – yet requiring just exactly that of competing belief systems. The conclusion, (no Sasquatch), is more important than actual logic or actual facts to support it. The conclusion, (no Sasquatch), is a purely religious tenet.**

  111. on 22 Dec 2011 at 6:30 pm 111.DPK said …

    Does anyone think it’s odd that Stan aka the 40 year old virgin, er, atheist, never engages in any actual debate despite that every one of his postings gets called out for either fallacious reasoning or flat out stupidity? Instead, he just cuts and pastes more ridiculous ramblings from his manifesto, babbling into the wind, like some crazy syphilitic dust bowl preacher, thinking he’s channeling god’s wisdom to the poor ignorant masses.
    What an odd fellow………….

  112. on 22 Dec 2011 at 6:45 pm 112.Lou (DFW) said …

    111.DPK said …

    “Does anyone think it’s odd that Stan aka the 40 year old virgin, er, atheist, never engages in any actual debate despite that every one of his postings gets called out for either fallacious reasoning or flat out stupidity? Instead, he just cuts and pastes more ridiculous ramblings from his manifesto, babbling into the wind, like some crazy syphilitic dust bowl preacher, thinking he’s channeling god’s wisdom to the poor ignorant masses.
    What an odd fellow………….”

    Yes, can you imagine how pissed he’d be if we all went to his blog and C&P all of the atheist comments here? No doubt that we’d all be banned.

    He’s simply an ignorant a-hole. First for writing that stuff, then for C&P it onto another’s blog.

  113. on 22 Dec 2011 at 7:59 pm 113.Curmudgeon said …

    40 YA writes:

    “The paradigm is being consciously shifted because Atheism is vulnerable. It makes demands of others that it cannot satisfy itself”

    They are being taught to take this stand in order not to be a position of defending anything. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

    The vast majority of the world accepts some form of God yet the vast majority are asked for proof. It is laughable.

    The argument? The majority was wrong about flat earth. Well I though about that but the vast majority are now round earthers. The vast majority call the sun hot, the moon a sphere, arsenic poison, etc etc.

    Until and If they can ever come up with something worthwhile other than live/die/rot/stand for nothing, they always will be insignificant.

    Thanks for the contribution 40ya

  114. on 22 Dec 2011 at 8:09 pm 114.DPK said …

    “The argument? The majority was wrong about flat earth. Well I though about that but the vast majority are now round earthers.”

    Yes, and in 100 years the majority will be athesits.. what’s your point?

    BTW, the vast majority of the world does not accept Jesus as divine. So where does that put your belief, Mr. Curmudgeon? In the incorrect minority? How can that be?
    You folks just keep cycling through the some tired and incorrect arguments, appeal to authority, straw man, argument from ignorance… why don’t you just demonstrate that your alleged god actually exists? Why does that seem to be an impossible task for you?
    Hmmmmm?

  115. on 22 Dec 2011 at 8:23 pm 115.Lou (DFW) said …

    113.Curmudgeon said …

    “They are being taught to take this stand in order not to be a position of defending anything.”

    “Atheism” is not a position that requires defense anymore than not believing in Santa Claus requires a defense. And most atheists do stand for something – freedom from religion. Unfortunately, we must defend that position from religious zealots such as yourself.

    “If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.”

    If you fall for religion, then you will fall for anything, regardless of what you stand for.

    “The vast majority of the world accepts some form of God yet the vast majority are asked for proof. It is laughable.”

    Yes, it’s laughable, yet sad that the majority of people are so unintelligent to believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence.

    “The argument? The majority was wrong about flat earth. Well I though about that but the vast majority are now round earthers. The vast majority call the sun hot, the moon a sphere, arsenic poison, etc etc.”

    That’s not “the argument,” but it illustrates that even the majority must eventually accept the facts. Maybe someday you will.

    “Until and If they can ever come up with something worthwhile other than live/die/rot/stand for nothing, they always will be insignificant.”

    All life on this planet is “insignificant.” The people who can’t understand and accept that, and who invent religions to compensate for their insecurity are the most insignificant because they are blinded from reality. Because you can’t accept that, you invent (“come up with”) an imaginary god that will send you to heaven for eternity. Yet above you bragged that you understand and accept simple scientific facts.

    Now, where is the evidence for your imaginary god?

  116. on 29 Dec 2011 at 2:27 am 116.Anonymous said …

    Intelligent design –

    http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/35leo1/

  117. on 29 Dec 2011 at 3:08 am 117.A said …

    “freedom from religion.”

    No such thing and is not guaranteed anywhere. You have freedom of religion and the guarantee that the gov will not establish a religion for you.

    The problem with atheist is they do not know the Constitution.

  118. on 29 Jan 2012 at 5:14 pm 118.Christopher said …

    If life has taught me anything it’s not to push my belief on any one. So now I simply hold out my hand and if you want it you can have it. God is real as real as you and I. The world is a stage and we are the players. If you truly look at the earth and all it’s wonder you will see that God is a wonderful provider. He has made everything good. Take for instance Air to breath, food to eat, and children to love. Every living thing was created by design. Even the hair on your head it keeps you from getting sun burn. If things have evolved then why do plants provide for us. They need the water to survive. They could be greedy and just keep it to themselves. Yet apple tree’s, Orange trees, Pear trees, and any other kind of fruit you want to name that comes from the ground taste good and is nourishment for our body’s needs. Yet we all take it for granted without really thinking of what we are saying. And spit in our all caring loving God’s face. So if I am saying anything intelligent to you. You might want to consider looking around and consider looking at the view of God objectively or at least having a little respect for the things he has provided you. God is real and he is watching and sitting in the audience of this stage so just be careful of how you act. He is just waiting until the play is over to give us our reward in the end.

  119. on 29 Jan 2012 at 6:16 pm 119.Lou (DFW) said …

    118.Christopher said …

    “If you truly [?] look at the earth and all it’s [sic] wonder you will see that God is a wonderful provider. He has made everything good.”

    WOW! What an example of delusion and ignorance.

  120. on 29 Jan 2012 at 10:52 pm 120.DPK said …

    “If you truly look at the earth and all it’s wonder you will see that God is a wonderful provider. He has made everything good. Take for instance Air to breath, food to eat, and children to love. Every living thing was created by design.”

    How about cancer, smallpox, dysentery, polio?
    How about droughts, famine, pestilence? Tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis? Did god “design” all those as well? And your wonder at god for providing you “food to eat” would probably not seems so benevolent to you if you weren’t at the top of the food chain and were in fact, the meal rather than the diner, eh?

  121. on 29 Jan 2012 at 11:24 pm 121.Lou (DFW) said …

    118.Christopher said …

    “Every living thing was created by design.”

    Designed to eat every other living thing. Some designer!

    “Even the hair on your head it keeps you from getting sun burn.”

    What about the hair everywhere else on the rest of the body? Doesn’t do that so well. If god was actually an intelligent designer, the he would have designed the sun not to sunburn the body in the first place! And that’s really the crux of it – nothing in nature is intelligently designed. It’s obvious it all evolved.

  122. on 30 Jan 2012 at 2:08 am 122.Anonymous said …

    Christopher, there’s a species of the parasitic bot fly that only attacks humans. It’s surprising that you would think that a fly using a child’s eye as a food source for it’s larvae is a good thing, but it seems you must.

    Let’s talk about tapeworms. Good things, right? Having one of those in your intestines is a sign of design and love of your god?

    Having a foot long parasitic nematode living inside of you and growing out through your orifices? Another great example of design and care. The hits just keep on coming.

    Have you any idea the number of different birth defects that affect humans? Yet you claim design. Well, he’s a fucking incompetent designer, that’s all one can say there.

    Arthritis? Rheumatism? Polio? Cleft lip, palate, and palsy at birth? Your god’s a bit of a failure isn’t he?

    Conjoined twins, Cyclopia? What about Craniopagus Parasiticus (extra, parasitic head), that’s a good one. And let’s not forget Anencephaly – totally amazing design that allows that kind of shit to happen.

    What kind of idiotic nonsense are you spouting with regard to trees keeping water to themselves? Are you aware that trees don’t move? Well, other than in Shakespeare but at least he admitted his tales were for amusement.

    And, seriously, you don’t really think that the primary purpose of the hair on your head is to prevent sunburn, do you?

    Really, Christopher, if you look around and think that your god is a wonderful provider, you might want to open your eyes a little and examine the real world – you know, the one you actually live in.

    Finally, you said this: “God is real and he is watching and sitting in the audience of this stage so just be careful of how you act. He is just waiting until the play is over to give us our reward in the end”

    OK, that’s a provable statement which you can demonstrate by providing evidence, that or it’s a complete load of unadulterated delusional nonsense.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply